The LEFS is a self-report questionnaire. Patients answer the question “Today, do you or would you have any difficulty at all with:” in regards to twenty different. No difficulty: with usual work, housework or school activities; with usual hobbies, recreational or sporting activities; getting into or out of the bath; walking. Another questionnaire, the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), with a version translated and validated for the Portuguese (LEFS-Brazil), has excellent.
|Published (Last):||24 March 2013|
|PDF File Size:||2.47 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Patients answer the question “Today, do you or would you have any difficulty at all with: Although there is evidence to demonstrate the applicability of the LEFS questionnaire in patients with OA of the knee and hip, there questionnair a gap in the ability of the instrument to discriminate between different degrees of severity of osteoarthritis. It is critical that measures of health status be reliable, valid, leds responsive to clinical change that occurs over time.
The MCID is approximately 9 scale points. To obtain this estimate, the SEM is multiplied by the z value for the confidence level of interest, and this quantity is multiplied by the square root of 2.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. In addition, the SF acute version was administered during the initial assessment and at the weekly follow-up assessments. Results – 1, individuals fulfilled leds inclusion criteria and were included in the study.
Assessing disability and change on individual patients: In cases where there is no change or change less than the MDC on follow-up, clinicians may be confident that true clinical change has not occurred.
The LEFS was administered during the initial assessment to patients with lower-extremity musculoskeletal dysfunction referred for physical therapy. In addition, the Spearman’s correlation test was applied in order to verify the relationship between the Lequesne Algofunctional Index and LEFS-Brazil, considering that the data is not normally distributed once these data have arose from questionnaires.
Of these, 36 Questiobnaire of self-report measures suitable for documenting outcomes in clinical practice and in clinical trials and lfs a condition-specific or generic health status measure should be dependent, in part, on the goals of measurement.
Total LEFS scale scores, means, and score distribution were determined for this group. In order to examine our argument for validity, which specified that patients with acute conditions would demonstrate more functional limitation than patients with chronic conditions, all patients were assigned a chronicity rating on a 3-point scale by 2 orthopedic physical therapists blinded to patients’ functional scale scores.
Close mobile search navigation Article navigation. The capacity of the LEFS and the SF physical function subscale and physical component summary scores to measure valid change was compared at 1 week and at 3 weeks using this theory for change. A description of the patients is presented in Table 1. The LEFS can be used by clinicians as a measure of patients’ initial function, ongoing progress, and outcome as well as to set functional goals.
Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. The capacity of the LEFS to detect change in lower-extremity function appears to be superior to that of the SF physical function subscale, as indicated by higher correlations with an external prognostic rating of change. In order to develop a measure that is applicable to a spectrum of questlonnaire and levels of disabilities, the remaining items were selected to represent different difficulty levels, as indicated by item mean scores that were higher and lower than the midpoint.
The LEFS was developed in a group of patients with various musculoskeletal disorders, and no reference data for the healthy population are available. The terminology used to define lefz and handicap was used as the basis of questions posed about functional limitations to patients.
A specialist was responsible for the classification of these subjects in categories relating to the radiographic findings ; this professional was blinded to the analyzed outcomes. Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Instrument: The content on questionnaird accessible through Physiopedia is for informational purposes only. Twelve of the 19 clinicians contributed data to the study Fig.
The SF has served as the principal generic measure for comparisons with condition-specific measures. Subsequent inquiry concerning the LEFS should center on head-to-head comparisons with condition- disease- or region-specific measures.
Normative data for the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS).
Braz J Phys Ther. Assessment of the test-retest reliability and construct validity of a modified Lequesne index in knee osteoarthritis. Performing heavy activities around your home. In the absence of an accepted measure of function, determination of the validity of functional scales has relied heavily on the concept of construct validity.
Health state utilities in knee replacement surgery: Going up or down 10 stairs about 1 flight of stairs. The same question was posed to clinicians in terms of deterioration. The interrater reliability for the prognostic ratings was determined using a type 3,2 intraclass correlation coefficient ICC.
Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) – Physiopedia
The ISCD’s official positions updated This information may be useful for estimating the sample size for subsequent studies, where a prognostic rating is used as a theory for change. Each subscale score can vary from 0 towith higher scores representing more desirable health states.
Should the measurement properties be similar, a single generic measure or subscale of that measure could be used in place of a number of condition-specific measures. A factor analysis performed on the final item questionnaire indicated that all items loaded on a single factor. Several barriers to the widespread adoption of generic and condition-specific measures in clinical practice have been identified, including 1 difficulty of administering the scales and of scoring, 2 difficulty in administering scales for different conditions and anatomical sites, 3 the practitioner’s belief that there is a lack of clinical meaningfulness for the scores, and 4 inadequate measurement properties for application to individual patients.
A minimum of volunteers had to be included at each hospital.