Journal of Digital Contents Society (디지털콘텐츠학회 논문지)

Digital Contents Society (한국디지털콘텐츠학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Reliability of the K-PEQ(Korean Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire) in Lower Extremity Amputees

절단장애인을 위한 한국어 의지평가 설문지의 신뢰도

  • Seong, Woo-Sung (Prosthetics and Orthotics Center, Veterans Hospital Service Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Jang-Hwan (Dept. of Biomechanical Engineering & Technology, Hanseo University) ;
  • Jeong, Dong-Hun (Dept. of Rehabilitation Technology, Korea Nazarene University)
  • 성우성 (중앙보훈병원 보장구센터) ;
  • 김장환 (한서대학교 의료복지 공학과) ;
  • 정동훈 (나사렛대학교 재활공학과)
  • Received : 2018.06.25
  • Accepted : 2018.07.25
  • Published : 2018.07.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Korean-PEQ (prosthesis evaluation questionnaire) was developed and verified its validity research but, evaluating its reliability applied to the lower extremity amputees have not been conducted. The aim of this study was to apply the Korean-PEQ for lower extremity amputees to evaluate the reliability. As a result, all of the items responding of Korean-PEQ shown to less than 15% ceiling effect and floor effect. therefore, the results were shown to be appropriate. Korean-PEQ reliability of each region of intra-class coefficient was shown to .719(95% CI .600~.811)~920(95%CI .890~.945) and the inter-region reliability was higher as 0.958. Item internal consistency Cronbach's ${\alpha}$ values are shown as higher .910.

한국어 의지평가 설문지를 개발하고 그 타당도가 연구되었으나, 다리 절단장애인을 대상으로 의지평가 설문지를 적용하여 신뢰도를 평가한 연구는 실시되지 않았다. 본 연구에서는 다리 절단장애인을 대상으로 개발된 한국어-PEQ를 적용하여 그에 대한 신뢰도를 평가하였다. 그 결과, 한국어-PEQ의 모든 항목에서 천장효과와 바닥효과가 15%이하로 나타나 응답의 난이도가 적절한 것으로 나타났다. 한국어-PEQ 영역별 신뢰도(inter-rater reliability)의 급간내 상관계수(intra-class coefficient, ICC)는 .719(95%CI .600~.811)~.920(95%CI .890~.945)로 나타났고, 영역간 신뢰도는 .958로 높게 나타났다. 문항 내적 일치도 Cronbach's ${\alpha}$값은 .910으로 높게 나타나 한국어-PEQ는 높은 신뢰도가 있음을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. T. R. Han, J. K. Choi, D. Y. Kim, D. Y. and B. M. Oh, "Recent trends in etiology and levels of lower limb amputations in korea," Journal of Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol. 28, . No. 1, pp. 98-103, 2004.
  2. S. H. Kim, Y. H. Lee, J. H. Hwang, M. A. Oh, M. K. Lee, N. H. Lee, D. W. Kang, S. J. Kwon, H. K. Oh, S. Y. Yun, and D. W. Lee, "A study of developing consumer directed disability policy in depth on national survey of the disabled persons. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs," 2014.
  3. M. S. Orenduff, A. D. Seqal, G. K. Klute, M. L. McDowell, J. A. Pecoraro, and J. M. Czemiecki, “Gait efficiency using the C-Leg,” J Rehabil Tes Dev, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 239-246, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2005.06.0095
  4. S. R. Steiber, and W. J. Krowinski, Measuring and managing patient satisfaction. American Hospital Publishing, Inc, 1990.
  5. W. S. Sim, J. H. Kim, W. S. Seong, and D. Y. Ahn, “A Comparison of the prosthetic satisfaction and gait characteristics between two sockets in a unilateral transtibial amputee,” Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation Science, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 599-613, 2015.
  6. S. A. Ali, N. A. Osman, M. Nasqshbandi, A. Eshraghi, M. Kamyab, and H. Gholizadeh, “Qualitative study of prosthetic suspension system on transtibial amputees’ satisfaction and perceived problems with their prosthetic devices,” Arch Phys Med Rehalil, Vol. 935, No. 11, pp. 1919-1923, 2012.
  7. C. K. Ross, C. A. Steward, and J. M. Sinacore, “A comparative study of seven measures of patient satisfaction,” Med Care, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 392-406, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199504000-00006
  8. P. S. Linder, “Toward a theory of patient satisfaction,” Soc Sci Med, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 577-582, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(82)90311-2
  9. M. W. Legro, G. D. Reiber, D. G. Smith, A. M. Del, J. Larsen, and D. A. Boone, “Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life,” Arch Phys Med Rehab, Vol. 79, No. 8, pp. 931-938, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90090-9
  10. D. A. Boone, and K. L. Coleman, "Use of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire," JPO, Vol. 18, pp. 68-79, 2006.
  11. W. S. Seong, J. H. Kim and D. H. Jeong, "Development and validity verification of korean-prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for amputee's use of prosthesis," Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation Science, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 293-330, 2017. https://doi.org/10.23944/Jsers.2017.06.56.2.13
  12. G. C. Pascoe, “Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis,” Eval Program Plann, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, pp. 185-210, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(83)90002-2
  13. G. Ferriero, D. Dughi, D. Orlandini, T. Moscato, D. Nicita, and F. Franchignoni, "Measuring long-term outcome in people with lower limb amputation: cross-validation of the italian versions of the prosthetic profile of the amputee and prosthesis evaluation questionnaire," Eur Med Phys, Vol. 30, No. 1-6, 1994.
  14. L. N. Brita, J. Anton, H. A. Ingemar, and A. Isam, “The locomotor capabilities index: validity and reliability of the swedish version in adults with lower limb amputation,” J health quality of life outcomes, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 44, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-44
  15. B. Vildan, B. Y. Gunes, O. Sibel, Y. Inci, and D. Fulya, "The prosthesis evaluation questionnaire: reliability and cross-validation of the turkish version," J. Phys Ther Sci, Vol. 27, pp. 1677-1680, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.1677
  16. J. D. Sarah, and B. Arjan, “Cross cultural equivalence testing of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire(PEQ) for an Arabic speaking population,” Prosthet Orthot Int, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 173-180, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364611433442
  17. F. Franchignoni, A. Giordano, and G. Ferriero, "Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Research analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire," Acta Derm Venereol, Vol. 39, pp. 138-144, 2007. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0033
  18. S. J. Day, and A. Buis, "Cross cultural equivalence testing of the prosthetic evaluation questionnaire (PEQ) for an Arabic speaking population," Prosthet Orthot Int, Vol. 36, pp, 173-180, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364611433442
  19. C. Conrad, T. R. Chamlian, and M. S. Ogasowara, "Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural adaptation and validation of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire," J Vasc Bras, Vol. 14, pp. 110-114, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.0038
  20. V. B. Safer, G. Yavuzer, and S. O. Demir, "The prosthesis evaluation questionnaire: reliability and cross-validation of the Turkish version," J Phys Ther Sci, Vol. 27, pp. 1677-1680, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.1677
  21. J. V. Benavent, C. Igual, and E. Mora, "Cross-cultural validation of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire fitted with prostheses in Spain," Prosthet Orthot Int, Vol. 40, pp. 713-719, 2015.
  22. P. R. Jussi, P. Kirsi, and H. K. Arja, "Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire," Disability and rehabilitation, 2017.
  23. C. A. McHorney, and A. R. Tarlov, "Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate," Qual Life Res. Vol. 4, pp. 293-307, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882
  24. D. L. Streiner, "Starting at the beginning; an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency," J Pers Assess, Vol. 80, pp. 99-103, 2013.

Cited by

  1. A Preliminary Study for the Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Social Environment Influencing Health vol.19, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2018.19.11.2093