The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity to change of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS The LEFS was administered to 107 patients with lower-extremity musculoskeletal dysfunction referred to 12 outpatient physical therapy clinics. METHODS The LEFS was administered during the initial assessment, 24 to 48 hours following the initial assessment, and then at weekly intervals for 4 weeks. The SF-36 (acute version) was administered during the initial assessment and at weekly intervals. A type 2,1 intraclass correlation coefficient was used to estimate test-retest reliability. Pearson correlations and one-way analyses of variance were used to examine construct validity. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship between an independent prognostic rating of change for each patient and change in the LEFS and SF-36 scores. RESULTS Test-retest reliability of the LEFS scores was excellent (R = .94 [95% lower limit confidence interval (CI) = .89]). Correlations between the LEFS and the SF-36 physical function subscale and physical component score were r=.80 (95% lower limit CI = .73) and r = .64 (95% lower limit CI = .54), respectively. There was a higher correlation between the prognostic rating of change and the LEFS than between the prognostic rating of change and the SF-36 physical function score. The potential error associated with a score on the LEFS at a given point in time is +/-5.3 scale points (90% CI), the minimal detectable change is 9 scale points (90% CI), and the minimal clinically important difference is 9 scale points (90% CI). CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION The LEFS is reliable, and construct validity was supported by comparison with the SF-36. The sensitivity to change of the LEFS was superior to that of the SF-36 in this population. The LEFS is efficient to administer and score and is applicable for research purposes and clinical decision making for individual patients.

[1]  Diane P. Martin,et al.  Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile Health-Status Measures* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  R A Deyo,et al.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[3]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measurement Properties of the RM‐18: A Modified Version of the Roland‐Morris Disability Scale , 1997, Spine.

[4]  J. Wright,et al.  A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  James G Wright,et al.  Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. , 1995, Medical care.

[6]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Health state utilities in knee replacement surgery: the development and evaluation of McKnee. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.

[7]  A. Jette,et al.  Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with spinal impairments. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[8]  M. Liang,et al.  Predictors of functional outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. , 1992, The Journal of rheumatology.

[9]  A. Beurskens,et al.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments , 1996, Pain.

[10]  G. Regehr,et al.  Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  J. Ware,et al.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. , 1996, Medical care.

[12]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  P. Stratford,et al.  Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[14]  E. J. Williams.  The Comparison of Regression Variables , 1959 .

[15]  Diane P. Martin,et al.  Development of a musculoskeletal extremity health status instrument: The musculoskeletal function assessment instrument , 1996, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[16]  P. Stratford,et al.  The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. , 1998, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[17]  P. Stratford,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[18]  R. Deyo.  Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. , 1988, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[19]  A M Jette,et al.  The Functional Status Index: reliability and validity of a self-report functional disability measure. , 1987, The Journal of rheumatology. Supplement.

[20]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  A. Jette,et al.  Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with knee impairments. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[22]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  S. Koskinen,et al.  Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. , 1993, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[24]  D L Riddle,et al.  Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[25]  E. Culham,et al.  Validation of outcome measures in patients with patellofemoral syndrome. , 1989, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[26]  A. Carr,et al.  Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. , 1996, Quality in health care : QHC.

[27]  A. Hjerpe,et al.  Kinetic studies on epiphyseal growth cartilage in the normal mouse. , 1998, Bone.

[28]  W H Rogers,et al.  Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. , 1995, Medical care.

[29]  Paul W. Stratford,et al.  Assessing Disability and Change on Individual Patients: A Report of a Patient Specific Measure , 1995 .

[30]  Freddie H. Fu,et al.  Development of a Patient-Reported Measure of Function of the Knee* , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  Diane P. Martin,et al.  Musculoskeletal function assessment instrument: Criterion and construct validity , 1996, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[32]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[33]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[34]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.

[35]  P. Stratford,et al.  The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: measurement properties. , 1995, Spine.

[36]  G. Samsa,et al.  Generic versus disease specific health status measures: comparing the sickness impact profile and the arthritis impact measurement scales. , 1992, The Journal of rheumatology.

[37]  J. Ware,et al.  Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. , 1992, Medical care.

[38]  J. Lysholm,et al.  Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale , 1982, The American journal of sports medicine.

[39]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[40]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[41]  B Kirshner,et al.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[42]  P. Stratford,et al.  The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. , 1997, Physical therapy.

[43]  E. Nelson,et al.  The Measurement of Health Status in Clinical Practice , 1989, Medical care.

[44]  J. Lysholm,et al.  Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[45]  M H Liang,et al.  Evaluating measurement responsiveness. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[46]  R A Deyo,et al.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[47]  E. Shapiro,et al.  The Use of a Generic, Patient-Based Health Assessment (SF-36) for Evaluation of Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries , 1996, The American journal of sports medicine.

[48]  A M Jette,et al.  Health status assessment in the occupational health setting. , 1996, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.