Measures satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices, highlighting a new reliable tool for quality of life assessment.
Purpose To develop a measure of satisfaction with orthoses and prostheses for the Limb Injury Measurement Battery for Quality of Life (LIMB-QOL). Methods Items were developed to assess an individual’s satisfaction with, and emotional and physical assimilation of, an orthosis and/or prosthesis. Items covered topics of satisfaction with device performance and aesthetics as well as user adaptation to a device, including usage, fit, and comfort. A pool of 65 items was administered to 471 individuals in the LIMB-QOL field testing/calibration study. Item response theory was used to evaluate and calibrate the new items. Test–retest reliability after 1–2 weeks was evaluated in a subsample. Results From the original pool, 39 items were removed for content and 11 items were removed due to differential item functioning by type of injury/limb loss and device (orthosis vs. prosthesis). Following psychometric analysis, 15 items were calibrated as an item bank. These items exhibited acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.95) and fit to a unidimensional model. The final 15-item bank has strong psychometric properties (test–retest reliability α = 0.79), can be administered as a computerized adaptive test or 7-item short form, and is applicable to upper and lower injuries, limb loss and reconstruction, and orthotic and prosthetic device users. Conclusion The LIMB-QOL Satisfaction with Orthosis/Prosthesis is a reliable measure, with evidence for validity in individuals with a variety of limb-affecting injuries and sudden-onset illnesses, and thus can be used broadly following major extremity trauma, and would be ideal for large-scale monitoring of QOL outcomes, although further evaluation of the validity for individuals with dysvascular or degenerative conditions is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tyner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: