Initial validation of the Swedish version of the London Handicap Scale

Abstract

The observations reported here are in accordance with previous studies using the original British LHS and provide initial support for the reliability and validity of the instrument for use in Sweden. However, ceiling effects may limit its usefulness as an outcome measure.

Development and validation of the Dutch version of the London Handicap Scale

“…This might be due to the small number of severely handicapped patients in the sample. The large ceiling effects found in this study are in accordance with some other studies [6,9,26] but not Harwood and Ebrahim [27]. The distribution of the sum score of the DLHS, which will be used in practice, had no ceiling effects.…”

“…Also, the sample is largely based on RA and COPD, making up almost 90% of the sample. However, the English or other translated versions of the LHS has been validated and used in other significant conditions like stroke [7,9,28], cataract [29] and cancer [30]. Furthermore, the study population was relatively young (mean age of 50.7) and less handicapped (mean DLHS sum score of 78).…”

“…The reliability of the LHS was shown to be good [7,8]. Nowadays, the LHS has been translated into different languages and is used to address participation outcomes in several countries [5,[9][10][11][12][13]. For use in the Netherlands the instrument should be translated into Dutch and evaluated.…”

Assessment of quality of life and participation within an outpatient rehabilitation setting

“…We cautiously selected the LHS, as a measure of participation, aware that it was developed for an English population with chronic disease [39]. However, since its conception it has been used in several countries and conditions [31][32][33]44]. Despite observing significant improvements in our diverse population in most of the LHS questions, ceiling effects potentially restrict the ability to determine the full extent of improvement.…”

“…Although there is, as yet, no instrument that adequately considers all the areas required to measure participation, Perenboom and Chorus [29] suggest the LHS was one of two questionnaires that most closely approximates participation, despite its use of the word 'handicap'. The LHS has been validated among several groups of patients [29][30][31], including outpatients [32,33]. It is self administered, and found to be simple and easy to use [34,35].…”