Validation of the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale With 5-Option Response Format in Slovene Lower-Limb Prosthetic Users

Franchignoni, Franco; Bavec, Andrej; Zupanc, Urška; Giordano, Andrea; Albensi, Caterina; Burger, Helena

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.10.126

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, this Rasch study demonstrated the good measurement quality of the PMQ 2.0, in line with other studies performed using Italian, 8 Slovene, 9-11 and German 12 versions. It also confirmed acceptable psychometric properties of the PEQ-MS, 5,22 despite some weakness in its item selection.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Nevertheless, our findings related to the psychometric characteristics of the investigated tools are in line with other studies using the same instruments, but performed in different contexts. 5,9,10,12 In summary, this Rasch study demonstrated the good measurement quality of the PMQ 2.0, in line with other studies performed using Italian, 8 Slovene, [9][10][11] and German 12 versions. It also confirmed acceptable psychometric properties of the PEQ-MS, 5,22 despite some weakness in its item selection.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This new version—PMQ 2.0 9 —confirmed its construct validity through convergence with other relevant outcome measures. 10,11 A German team performed a head-to-head Rasch validation of the PMQ 2.0 and the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 in PwLLA, confirming the good measurement quality of the PMQ 2.0 (for unidimensionality, rating scale functioning, item fit, and reliability indices) and showing that its operational range is more suitable than the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 for assessing people with advanced locomotor abilities. 12…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Head-to-head Rasch comparison of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in Italian lower-limb prosthesis users

Franchignoni

Giordano

Monticone

2022

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I hereby submit our paper entitled "Head-to-head Rasch comparison of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in Italian lower-limb prosthesis users" for your consideration for publication in "Prosthetics and Orthotics International".The Prosthesis-Evaluation-Questionnaire Mobility Section (PEQ-MS) and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) are two validated self-report questionnaires assessing mobility in people with lower-limb amputation. We compared the psychometric properties of these two questionnaires head-to-head in a sample of 100 lower-limb prosthesis users. Our results show that the PMQ 2.0 has a better measurement performance and larger operational range than the PEQ-MS, making it more suitable for assessing lower-limb prosthesis users with a large range of locomotor abilities. We think that these findings will be of interest to the readers of your journal, in that understanding the psychometric strengths and weaknesses of measurement tools is important for selecting suitable outcome measures, addressing clinical and research issues, and informing healthcare policy decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Head-to-head Rasch comparison of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in Italian lower-limb prosthesis users

Franchignoni

Giordano

Monticone

2022

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, the quality of item selection in PMQ 2.0 was confirmed and the positive findings are not surprising considering that the questionnaire shares 10 out of 12 items with the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section (from which the PMQ 2.0 was derived [12]), a widely-used Rasch-based measure of mobility in individuals with LLA [3,4,11,35]. In addition, in lower-limb prosthesis users, a recent Slovene study reported an excellent correlation of the PMQ 2.0 with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, a questionnaire assessing the degree of confidence of an individual in undertaking activities of daily living without losing balance [36]. The transformation of the ordinal summed raw scores of PMQ 2.0 into interval-level measurements (not shown) produced a conversion table with values close to those already published [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rasch validation and comparison of the German versions of the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in lower-limb prosthesis users

Ranker¹,

Gütenbrunner²,

Eckhardt³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Rehabilitation Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare, through Rasch analysis, the psychometric properties of the Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI-5) and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) in German lower-limb prosthesis users. The questionnaires were concurrently administered to a convenience sample of 98 consecutively recruited individuals with lower limb amputation (LLA) (male/female = 61/37; mean age 57 ± 14 years). LCI-5 showed disordered rating scale thresholds (one response option in three items required collapsing); local dependence between two items (resolved by creating a testlet); underfit of one item (‘Get up from the floor’); and presence of a second weak dimension. PMQ 2.0 showed a correctly functioning rating scale; good fit of the data to the model (apart from some overfit); local dependence between two items (absorbed by creating a testlet); and essential unidimensionality. At scale co-calibration onto a common interval-scaled metric, PMQ 2.0 was better targeted than LCI-5 (i.e. the extent of item difficulty was more appropriate for the sample) and its operational range allowed a more precise measurement of higher locomotor abilities. The correlation between LCI-5 and PMQ 2.0 scores was rho = 0.78. In conclusion, LCI-5 revealed some drawbacks, confirming a previous Rasch study; refinement of its rating scale and item selection seems therefore warranted. The PMQ 2.0 demonstrated good overall measurement quality, in line with previous Italian and Slovene studies. The operational range of the PMQ 2.0 makes it more suitable than LCI-5 for assessing people with high locomotor abilities.

show abstract

“…41 On the contrary, in patients with a lower extremity amputation, the ABC-16 was recommended 42 and the ABC-16 with 5-option response format was also found an effective measure of balance confidence. 43 In addition, because ABC-6 contains six of the most balancechallenging activities, its scores were significantly lower than that of the ABC-16. The additional ten items in the ABC-16 may exaggerate the overall confidence level and this was confirmed by the ceiling effect of the ABC-16 observed in one study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Chinese Short Version of the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale: Its Validity, Reliability, and Predictive Value for Future Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Zhang¹,

Tian²,

Gao³

et al. 2022

CIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese short version of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-6), and its predictive value for prospective falls in community-dwelling older adults. Patients and Methods: A total of 391 community older adults completed the prospective study. Internal consistency reliability, testretest reliability, structural validity and discriminant validity were analyzed. To determine the accuracy of ABC-6 total score in predicting falls, a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed, and comparisons with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-16) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) were made. Results: Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.938) and test-retest reliability (ICC=0.964, 95% CI: 0.947-0.977) were found for the ABC-6. Exploratory factor analysis suggested that ABC-6 had a one-factor structure (explained variance, 68.30%). The optimal cutoff value, sensitivity and specificity of ABC-6 to distinguish fallers from non-fallers was ≤ 60.00%, 70.83% and 84.26%, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the predictive value among the ABC-6, ABC-16, and BBS. Conclusion:The Chinese version of the ABC-6 scale was a valid and reliable tool for measuring self-perceived balance confidence in community-dwelling older adults, and can be used as an effective assessment tool to predict future falls.

show abstract

Validation of the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale With 5-Option Response Format in Slovene Lower-Limb Prosthetic Users

Cited by 6 publications

References 28 publications

Head-to-head Rasch comparison of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in Italian lower-limb prosthesis users

Head-to-head Rasch comparison of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in Italian lower-limb prosthesis users

Rasch validation and comparison of the German versions of the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in lower-limb prosthesis users

The Chinese Short Version of the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale: Its Validity, Reliability, and Predictive Value for Future Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About