Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the satisfaction module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey.
Journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
ISSN: 1746-1553
Titre abrégé: Prosthet Orthot Int
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7707720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2022
01 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
25
01
2021
accepted:
09
08
2021
pubmed:
30
11
2021
medline:
15
4
2022
entrez:
29
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evaluation of prosthesis and orthosis (P&O) devices and service satisfaction in patients using P&O are important to understand the patient perspective and improve the quality of devices and the services. The aim of this study was to translate the original Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) satisfaction module into Turkish and examine its psychometric properties in lower limb P&O users. Cross-sectional study. The Turkish versions of the OPUS-Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) and Service (CSS) modules were applied to 157 individuals using a lower limb prosthesis or orthosis. The retest of the survey was applied 5-7 days later. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to determine test-retest reliability, and Cronbach alpha was used to determine internal consistency. Criterion validity was evaluated using the Nottingham Health Profile. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the Turkish version of the OPUS satisfaction module. The test-retest correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92 for CSD and 0.91 for CSS) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84 for CSD and 0.95 for CSS) were high. A statistically significant correlation was found between the OPUS CSD and CSS modules and the Nottingham Health Profile (r = -0.325 for CSD module, r = -0.381 for CSS module, P < 0.001). The factor analysis revealed one-factor structure for both modules. This study demonstrated the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the OPUS satisfaction module, and it provides a useful starting point for future studies on this survey.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Evaluation of prosthesis and orthosis (P&O) devices and service satisfaction in patients using P&O are important to understand the patient perspective and improve the quality of devices and the services.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to translate the original Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) satisfaction module into Turkish and examine its psychometric properties in lower limb P&O users.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cross-sectional study.
METHODS
METHODS
The Turkish versions of the OPUS-Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) and Service (CSS) modules were applied to 157 individuals using a lower limb prosthesis or orthosis. The retest of the survey was applied 5-7 days later. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to determine test-retest reliability, and Cronbach alpha was used to determine internal consistency. Criterion validity was evaluated using the Nottingham Health Profile. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the Turkish version of the OPUS satisfaction module.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The test-retest correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92 for CSD and 0.91 for CSS) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84 for CSD and 0.95 for CSS) were high. A statistically significant correlation was found between the OPUS CSD and CSS modules and the Nottingham Health Profile (r = -0.325 for CSD module, r = -0.381 for CSS module, P < 0.001). The factor analysis revealed one-factor structure for both modules.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the OPUS satisfaction module, and it provides a useful starting point for future studies on this survey.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34840278
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000067
pii: 00006479-202204000-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
170-174Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Références
Hadadi M, Ghoseiri K, Fardipour S, et al. The Persian version of satisfaction assessment module of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey. Disabil Health J 2016; 9: 90–99.
Bravini E, Franchignoni F, Ferriero G, et al. Validation of the Italian version of the CSD module of the orthotics and prosthetics users' survey. Disabil Health J 2014; 7: 442–447.
Heinemann AW, Bode R, O'Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003; 27: 191–206.
Robinson C, Fatone S. You've heard about outcome measures, so how do you use them? Integrating clinically relevant outcome measures in orthotic management of stroke. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013; 37: 30–42.
Condie E, Scott H, Treweek S. Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: a review of the literature 1995 to 2005. J Prosthet Orthot 2006; 18: P13–P45.
Figueiredo J, Moreno JC, Matias AC, et al. Outcome measures and motion capture systems for assessing lower limb orthosis-based interventions after stroke: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2019: 16: 674–683.
Peaco A, Halsne E, Hafner BJ. Assessing satisfaction with orthotic devices and services: a systematic literature review. J Prosthet Orthot 2011; 23: 95–105.
Karmarkar AM, Collins DM, Kelleher A, et al. Satisfaction related to wheelchair use in older adults in both nursing homes and community dwelling. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2009; 4: 337–343.
Ware JE Jr, Phillips J, Yody B, et al. Assessment tools: functional health status and patient satisfaction. Am J Med Qual 1996; 11: S50–3.
Saxton J. How to increase economic returns and reduce liability exposure: part 1—Patient satisfaction as an economic tool. J Med Pract Manag 2001; 17: 142–144.
Drain M, Kaldenberg D. Building patient loyalty and trust: the role of patient satisfaction. Group Pract J 1999; 48: 32–35.
Geertzen J, Gankema H, Groothoff J, et al. Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002; 26: 64–71.
Ramstrand N, Jacobs NA. ISPO consensus conference on appropriate lower limb orthotics for developing countries: conclusions and recommendations. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31: 214–216.
Heinemann AW, Connelly L, Ehrlich-Jones L, et al. Outcome instruments for prosthetics: clinical applications. Phys Med Rehabil Clin 2014; 25: 179–198.
Bakhsh H, Franchignoni F, Bravini E, et al. Validation of the Arabic version of the client satisfaction with device module of the “orthotics and prosthetics users” survey. Ann Saudi Med 2014; 34: 320–327.
Jarl G, Holmefur M, Hermansson LM. Test–retest reliability of the Swedish version of the orthotics and prosthetics users’ survey. Prosthet Orthot Int 2014; 38: 21–26.
Topuz S, Ülger Ö, Yakut Y, et al. 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: 201–206.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25:3186–3191.
Kucukdeveci AA, McKenna SP, Kutlay S, et al. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res 2000; 23: 31–38.
Demet K, Guillemin F, Martinet N, et al. Nottingham Health Profile: reliability in a sample of 542 subjects with major amputation of one or several limbs. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002; 26: 120–123.
Safer VB, Yavuzer G, Demir SO, et al. The prosthesis evaluation questionnaire: reliability and cross-validation of the Turkish version. J Phys Ther Sci 2015; 27: 1677–1680.
Giray E, Eshraghi A, Gündüz OH. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the prosthesis donning and doffing questionnaire for persons with transtibial amputations. J Prosthet Orthot 2021; doi: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000343.
doi: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000343
Alpar R. Spor bilimlerinde uygulamali istatistik [Applied Statistics in Sport Sciences]. Nobel Academic Publishing, Ankara, Turkey; 2006.
Ebel RL. Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 407–424.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: applications to Practice. Vol 892. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper; 2009.
Beckerman H, Roebroeck M, Lankhorst G, et al. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001: 10: 571–578.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education; New York; 1994.
Guadagnoli E, Velicer WF. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol Bull 1988; 103: 265.
Dogan A, Sungur I, Bilgic S, et al. Amputations in eastern Turkey (Van): a multicenter epidemiological study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turcica 2008; 42: 53–58.
Yaşar E, Tok F, Kesikburun S, et al. Epidemiologic data of trauma-related lower limb amputees: A single center 10-year experience. Injury 2017; 48: 349–352.
Osoba D, Bezjak A, Brundage M, et al. Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: basic approach of The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 280–287.
Brehm M, Bus SA, Harlaar J, et al. A candidate core set of outcome measures based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health for clinical studies on lower limb orthoses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011; 35: 269–277.