Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Comprehensive Lower Limb Amputee Socket Survey

Abstract

Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Comprehensive Lower Limb Amputee Socket Survey

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to translate the Comprehensive Lower Limb Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS) into Turkish and examine its reliability and validity in lower limb amputees. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 97 lower limb amputees. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to evaluate internal consistency, and intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate test-retest reliability. The retest of the CLASS was applied one week later. The satisfaction with the prosthesis subscale of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scale (TAPES) was used to assess convergent validity. Results: The mean age of the participants was 46.78±15.04 years and 71.1 % were male. Internal consistency was found to be high for all domains of the Turkish CLASS (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.81 to 0.90). Test-retest reliability was found to be high (intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.82-0.95). A significant relationship was found between all domains of the CLASS and TAPES prosthesis satisfaction subscale (r=0.553 for stability domain, r=0.509 for suspension domain, r=0.482 for comfort domain, r= 0.444 for appearance domain, p<0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the Turkish version of the CLASS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing user’s perception about socket fit in lower limb prosthesis users.

Keywords

• Prostheses
• Surveys
• Socket fit

References

1. Ülger Ö, Yıldırım Şahan T, Celik SE. A systematic literature review of physiotherapy and rehabilitation approaches to lower-limb amputation. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;34(11):821-34.
2. Van Velzen J, van Bennekom CA, Polomski W, Slootman J, van der Woude LH, Houdijk H. Physical capacity and walking ability after lower limb amputation: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(11):999-1016.
3. Baars EC, Schrier E, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH. Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees: A systematic review of associated factors and questionnaires. Medicine. 2018;97(39).
4. Jia X, Zhang M, Lee WC. Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb—dynamic effects. J Biomech. 2004;37(9):1371-7.
5. Klotz R, Colobert B, Botino M, Permentiers I. Influence of different types of sockets on the range of motion of the hip joint by the transfemoral amputee. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;54(7):399-410.
6. Turner S, McGregor AH. Perceived effect of socket fit on major lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation: A clinician and amputee perspective. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020;2(3):100059.
7. Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, Ajax MJ, Boone DA, Larsen JA, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36(3):155-63.
8. Dickinson AS, Steer JW, Woods CJ, Worsley PR. Registering a methodology for imaging and analysis of residual-limb shape after transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(2):207-18.

9. Meulenbelt HE, Dijkstra PU, Jonkman MF, Geertzen JH. Skin problems in lower limb amputees: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(10):603-8.
10. Papaioannou G, Mitrogiannis C, Nianios G, Fiedler G. Assessment of amputee socket–stump–residual bone kinematics during strenuous activities using Dynamic Roentgen Stereogrammetric Analysis. J Biomech. 2010;43(5):871-8.
11. Sanders J, Zachariah S, Jacobsen A, Fergason J. Changes in interface pressures and shear stresses over time on trans-tibial amputee subjects ambulating with prosthetic limbs: comparison of diurnal and six-month differences. J Biomech. 2005;38(8):1566-73.
12. Al-Fakih EA, Abu Osman NA, Mahmad Adikan FR. Techniques for interface stress measurements within prosthetic sockets of transtibial amputees: A review of the past 50 years of research. Sensors. 2016;16(7):1119.
13. Binedell T, Ghazali MFB, Wong C, Subburaj K, Blessing L. Measuring discomfort—An objective method for quantifying peak pressure discomfort and improved fit in adults with transtibial amputation. PM&R. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12796
14. Kingsley C, Patel S. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. Bja Education. 2017;17(4):137-44.
15. Gholizadeh H, Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Razak N. Transtibial prosthesis suspension systems: systematic review of literature. Clin Biomech. 2014;29(1):87-97.
16. Nia A, Toetschinger G, Kubinec T, Domayer S. Evaluation of the new, patient-adjustable socket system Varos in the early phase of prosthetic rehabilitation: a pilot study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022;58(3):462-469.
17. Kahle J, Miro RM, Ho LT, Porter M, Lura DJ, Carey SL, et al. The effect of the transfemoral prosthetic socket interface designs on skeletal motion and socket comfort: A randomized clinical trial. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020;44(3):145-54.
18. Richardson A, Dillon MP. User experience of transtibial prosthetic liners: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(1):6-18.
19. Demirdel S, Ulaş K, Erol Çelik S, Karahan S, Topuz S. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the satisfaction module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2022;46(2):170-4.
20. Topuz S, Ülger Ö, Yakut Y, Gül Şener F. Reliability and construct validity of the Turkish version of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scales (TAPES) in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(2):201-6.
21. Dou P, Jia X, Suo S, Wang R, Zhang M. Pressure distribution at the stump/socket interface in transtibial amputees during walking on stairs, slope and non-flat road. Clin Biomech. 2006;21(10):1067-73.
22. Gailey R, Kristal A, Lucarevic J, Harris S, Applegate B, Gaunaurd I. The development and internal consistency of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey in active lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019;43(1):80-7.
23. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94-104.
24. Hafner BJ, Smith DG. Differences in function and safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and-3 transfemoral amputees and influence of prosthetic knee joint control. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):417-33.
25. Rouhani N, Esfandiari E, Babaee T, Khosravi M, Moradi V, Balouchkayvan B, et al. The comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey: reliability and validity of the persian version. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021;45(2):131-137.
26. Alpar R. Applied Statistics and Validity and Reliability with Examples from Sports, Health and Educational Sciences. Detay Publishing, Ankara; 2016.
27. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice: Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ; 2009.
28. Ebel RL. Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychometrika. 1951;16(4):407-24.
29. Alpar R. Applied statistics in sports sciences: Nobel Publishing, Ankara; 2006.
30. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651-7.
31. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory 3E: Tata McGraw-hill education; 1994.
32. Harness N, Pinzur MS. Health related quality of life in patients with dysvascular transtibial amputation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;383:204-7.
33. Ali S, Osman NAA, Eshraghi A, Gholizadeh H, Abas WABBW. Interface pressure in transtibial socket during ascent and descent on stairs and its effect on patient satisfaction. Clin Biomech. 2013;28(9-10):994-9.