Introduction: Satisfaction with prosthetic devices is a key determinant of functional outcomes and quality of life in individuals with lower-limb amputation. Donning and doffing a prosthesis are essential daily activities that may influence user satisfaction and clinical decision-making. However, no validated Persian instrument is currently available to specifically assess these aspects. This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Prosthesis Donning and Doffing Questionnaire (PDDQ) in individuals with transtibial amputation. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional repeated-measures study included 104 individuals with transtibial amputation. The translation and cultural adaptation followed established guidelines, including forward and backward translation, expert committee review, and pilot testing. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency and test–retest reliability (n = 33; 7–14-day interval). Concurrent validity was evaluated by examining correlations between the Persian version of the PDDQ (P-PDDQ) and the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales. Known-groups validity was assessed based on different suspension systems. Results: The Cronbach’s alpha of the P-PDDQ obtained 0.62, showing close to acceptable range for internal consistency. Excellent test–retest reliability was demonstrated, with intraclass correlation coefficient values ranging from 0.91 to 0.99. Concurrent validity analysis showed no significant correlations between the total P-PDDQ score and Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales subscales, except for the functional satisfaction subscale ( P = 0.02). Known-groups validity revealed significant differences between participants using anatomical and pin/lock suspension systems in domains related to donning and doffing satisfaction. Conclusions: The P-PDDQ is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing satisfaction with prosthesis donning and doffing in individuals with transtibial amputation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bagheripour et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: