Ann Rehabil Med.  2025 Apr;49(2):72-80. 10.5535/arm.240087.

Korean Translation and Psychometric Properties of Self-Report Instrument for Mobility Measuring for Adults With Lower Limb Amputation

• Kim JH
• Jo S
• Lee G

• KMID: 2567482
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5535/arm.240087

Abstract

Objective
To assess mobility in prosthetic limb users, the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) was developed as a brief item bank. The PLUS-M exhibits good reliability and has been translated into more than 15 languages; however, a Korean translation is not yet available. Therefore, this study translated the 44 items of PLUS-M into the Korean language and analysed the psychometric properties of the PLUS-M/Short Form 12 (PLUS-M/SF- 12) instrument through official procedures.
Methods
The process of Korean translation began with a consultation with the developer of the PLUS-M and included the first and second compatibility verification, back-translation, back-translation verification by the developer, and the final approval of the Korean version. This study tested validity using different instruments such as Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, 2-Minute Walk Test, Timed Up and Go Test to assess various characteristics related to mobility. The translated version PLUS-M was then sent to two physical therapists working at Incheon Hospital and one prosthetist working at a Rehabilitation Engineering Center for them to assess the appropriateness of term use and understanding of the instrument.
Results
The study found excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the PLUS-M/SF-12 Korean version questionnaire, indicating its reliability and predictability across repeated measurements.
Conclusion
This study provided a tool to assess the mobility of individuals with lower limb amputations.

Keyword

Amputee; Validity; Patient reported outcome measures; Psychometrics

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Correlation graph for each test instrument. ABC, Activities-specific Balance Confidence; 2MWT, 2-Minute Walk Test; TUG, Timed Up and Go Test; PLUS-M/SF-12, Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility/Short Form 12.

• 

Reference

1. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ. Limb amputation and limb deficiency: epidemiology and recent trends in the United States. South Med J. 2002; 95:875–83. DOI: 10.1097/00007611-200208000-00018. PMID: 12190225.

2. Fortington LV, Rommers GM, Geertzen JH, Postema K, Dijkstra PU. Mobility in elderly people with a lower limb amputation: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012; 13:319–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.12.097. PMID: 21450239.

3. Solway S, Brooks D, Lacasse Y, Thomas S. A qualitative systematic overview of the measurement properties of functional walk tests used in the cardiorespiratory domain. Chest. 2001; 119:256–70. DOI: 10.1378/chest.119.1.256. PMID: 11157613.

4. Hawkins EJ, Riddick W. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of clinical performance-based outcome measures of walking for individuals with lower limb amputations: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2018; 98:1037–45. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzy107. PMID: 30184132.

5. Martinez-Martin P, Jeukens-Visser M, Lyons KE, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Selai C, Siderowf A, et al. Health-related quality-of-life scales in Parkinson’s disease: critique and recommendations. Mov Disord. 2011; 26:2371–80. DOI: 10.1002/mds.23834. PMID: 21735480.

6. Stucki G, Kostanjsek N, Ustün B, Cieza A. ICF-based classification and measurement of functioning. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2008; 44:315–28. PMID: 18762741.

7. Franchignoni F, Orlandini D, Ferriero G, Moscato TA. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the locomotor capabilities index in adults with lower-limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85:743–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.010. PMID: 15129398.

8. Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998; 79:931–8. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90090-9. PMID: 9710165.

9. Hafner BJ, Morgan SJ, Askew RL, Salem R. Psychometric evaluation of self-report outcome measures for prosthetic applications. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016; 53:797–812. DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2015.12.0228. PMID: 28273329.

10. Hafner BJ, Gaunaurd IA, Morgan SJ, Amtmann D, Salem R, Gailey RS. Construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in adults with lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98:277–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.026. PMID: 27590443.

11. Karatzios C, Loiret I, Luthi F, Leger B, Le Carre J, Saubade M, et al. Transcultural adaptation and validation of a French version of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility 12-item Short-Form (PLUS-M/FC-12) in active amputees. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019; 62:142–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.02.006. PMID: 30965157.

12. Balkman GS, Samejima S, Fujimoto K, Hafner BJ. Japanese translation and linguistic validation of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M). Prosthet Orthot Int. 2022; 46:75–83. DOI: 10.1097/pxr.0000000000000059. PMID: 34693940.

13. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25:3186–91. PMID: 11124735.

14. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17:268–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x. PMID: 20874835.

15. Hafner BJ. Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) 12-item Short Form [Internet]. University of Washington;2014 [cited 2022 Oct 7]. Available from: https://plus-m.org/files/PLUS-M_12-Item_SF_US_ENGLISH_v1.2.pdf.

16. Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995; 50A:M28–34. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/50a.1.m28. PMID: 7814786.

17. Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M. Psychometric properties of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale among individuals with a lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84:656–61. PMID: 12736877.

18. Jang SN, Cho SI, Ou SW, Lee ES, Baik HW. The validity and reliability of Korean Fall Efficacy Scale(FES) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale(ABC). J Korean Geriatr Soc. 2003; 7:255–68.

19. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys Ther. 2000; 80:896–903. PMID: 10960937.

20. Ross RM, Murthy JN, Wollak ID, Jackson AS. The six minute walk test accurately estimates mean peak oxygen uptake. BMC Pulm Med. 2010; 10:31. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-10-31. PMID: 20504351.

21. Enright PL. The six-minute walk test. Respir Care. 2003; 48:783–5. PMID: 12890299.

22. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60:34–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012. PMID: 17161752.

23. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Houghton Mifflin;2003. p. 1–756.

24. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994; 6(4):284–90.

25. Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Cho B, Cunniffe B, Licht S, et al. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee’s ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83:613–27. DOI: 10.1053/ampr.2002.32309. PMID: 11994800.

26. 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; 46:417–33. PMID: 19675993.

27. Gifford DR, Holloway RG, Frankel MR, Albright CL, Meyerson R, Griggs RC, et al. Improving adherence to dementia guidelines through education and opinion leaders. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 131:237–46. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-131-4-199908170-00002. PMID: 10454944.

28. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013; 346:f167. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f167. PMID: 23358487.

29. Cella D, Hahn EA, Jensen SE, Butt Z, Nowinski CJ, Rothrock N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in performance measurement. RTI Press;2015. p. 1–100.

30. Deathe AB, Wolfe DL, Devlin M, Hebert JS, Miller WC, Pallaveshi L. Selection of outcome measures in lower extremity amputation rehabilitation: ICF activities. Disabil Rehabil. 2009; 31:1455–73. DOI: 10.1080/09638280802639491. PMID: 19479574.

31. Hawkins AT, Henry AJ, Crandell DM, Nguyen LL. A systematic review of functional and quality of life assessment after major lower extremity amputation. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014; 28:763–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2013.07.011. PMID: 24495325.

32. Heinemann AW, Connelly L, Ehrlich-Jones L, Fatone S. Outcome instruments for prosthetics: clinical applications. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014; 25:179–98. PMID: 24287247.