Validity and reliability of the Dutch translation of the OPUS' client satisfaction with device module in chronic users of hand orthoses.
Hand
OPUS-CSD
Orthotic Devices
Patient reported outcome measures
Reliability and validity
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Aug 2023
21 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
06
04
2023
accepted:
07
08
2023
medline:
23
8
2023
pubmed:
22
8
2023
entrez:
22
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Orthosis satisfaction is an important outcome in assessing quality of care. However, no measurement specifically assessing orthosis satisfaction is available in the Dutch language. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate the Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) into Dutch, and to assess its content validity, structural validity and reliability in persons with chronic hand conditions. The CSD was translated and cross-cultural adapted according to respective guidelines. To determine content validity, 10 chronic hand orthotic users and two professionals judged the relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness of the Dutch CSD (D-CSD). Thereafter, in a cross-sectional study, 76 persons were asked to complete the D-CSD twice, with a 2-week interval. Dimensionality of the D-CSD was examined by principal component analysis (PCA), and factor model fit was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed as internal consistency and test-retest reliability, including the 95% limits of agreement (LoA), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). The D-CSD items and response options were deemed relevant and comprehensible. After adding an item on cleaning the orthosis, content validity was judged sufficient. PCA indicated a one-factor model, which was confirmed by CFA. We found good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82; 95%CI 0.75-0.87), and moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.81; 95%CI 0.71-0.87). There was no difference between the mean D-CSD score at test (26.8 points) and retest (25.9 points) (mean (SD) difference: 0.86 points (4.00); 95%CI -0.06-1.79; p = 0.07). The 95% LoA were -6.99 to 8.71, and the SEM and SDC were 2.88 and 7.98 points, respectively. Based on sufficient content and structural validity, and good reliability, we consider the D-CSD a useful tool to evaluate orthosis satisfaction in persons with chronic hand conditions on group level. Because of a relatively high SDC, sensitivity to detect changes over time on individual level is limited. NCT05320211.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Orthosis satisfaction is an important outcome in assessing quality of care. However, no measurement specifically assessing orthosis satisfaction is available in the Dutch language. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate the Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) into Dutch, and to assess its content validity, structural validity and reliability in persons with chronic hand conditions.
METHODS
METHODS
The CSD was translated and cross-cultural adapted according to respective guidelines. To determine content validity, 10 chronic hand orthotic users and two professionals judged the relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness of the Dutch CSD (D-CSD). Thereafter, in a cross-sectional study, 76 persons were asked to complete the D-CSD twice, with a 2-week interval. Dimensionality of the D-CSD was examined by principal component analysis (PCA), and factor model fit was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed as internal consistency and test-retest reliability, including the 95% limits of agreement (LoA), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The D-CSD items and response options were deemed relevant and comprehensible. After adding an item on cleaning the orthosis, content validity was judged sufficient. PCA indicated a one-factor model, which was confirmed by CFA. We found good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82; 95%CI 0.75-0.87), and moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.81; 95%CI 0.71-0.87). There was no difference between the mean D-CSD score at test (26.8 points) and retest (25.9 points) (mean (SD) difference: 0.86 points (4.00); 95%CI -0.06-1.79; p = 0.07). The 95% LoA were -6.99 to 8.71, and the SEM and SDC were 2.88 and 7.98 points, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on sufficient content and structural validity, and good reliability, we consider the D-CSD a useful tool to evaluate orthosis satisfaction in persons with chronic hand conditions on group level. Because of a relatively high SDC, sensitivity to detect changes over time on individual level is limited.
STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER
BACKGROUND
NCT05320211.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37605151
doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02181-3
pii: 10.1186/s12955-023-02181-3
pmc: PMC10441692
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05320211']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
93Subventions
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10310012110002
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10310012110002
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10310012110002
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10310012110002
Pays : Netherlands
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012 Nov;7(6):469-78
pubmed: 22439801
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Sep;96(9):1615-26
pubmed: 25804528
Int J Rehabil Res. 2014 Dec;37(4):361-7
pubmed: 25305007
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
Int J Rehabil Res. 2021 Sep 1;44(3):193-199
pubmed: 34356037
Neurology. 2008 Oct 14;71(16):1254-60
pubmed: 18852440
BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 6;13(4):e069424
pubmed: 37024252
J Rehabil Med. 2010 Jun;42(6):588-92
pubmed: 20549165
Qual Life Res. 2021 Aug;30(8):2197-2218
pubmed: 33818733
Eur J Cancer. 2005 Jan;41(2):280-7
pubmed: 15661554
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021 Apr 27;19(1):134
pubmed: 33906680
Disabil Rehabil. 2003 Mar 18;25(6):267-72
pubmed: 12623616
Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(23):1955-62
pubmed: 19479509
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Disabil Health J. 2016 Jan;9(1):90-9
pubmed: 26476934
Phys Ther. 1993 Jun;73(6):386-95; discussion 396-401
pubmed: 8497513
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 May;21(5):668-75
pubmed: 23458785
Phys Ther. 2011 Apr;91(4):555-65
pubmed: 21310896
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Ann Saudi Med. 2014 Jul-Aug;34(4):320-7
pubmed: 25811205
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009 Dec;33(4):329-38
pubmed: 19961294
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2018 Jan;25(1):13-19
pubmed: 29025365
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep;86(9):1855-9
pubmed: 16181954
Psychol Bull. 1988 Mar;103(2):265-275
pubmed: 3363047
Disabil Health J. 2014 Oct;7(4):442-7
pubmed: 25224984
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2022 Apr 1;46(2):170-174
pubmed: 34840278
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Jun;70(6):921-8
pubmed: 21398333
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014 Feb;38(1):21-6
pubmed: 23652919
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016 Apr;40(2):158-69
pubmed: 25428901
Psychometrika. 1965 Jun;30:179-85
pubmed: 14306381
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
J Rehabil Med. 2012 Mar;44(3):249-53
pubmed: 22366728
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003 Dec;27(3):191-206
pubmed: 14727700
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019 May;62(3):168-173
pubmed: 30965159
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964