Outcome measures provide a way to evaluate the success of physical therapy treatments, providing a way for comparing outcomes related to different intervention approaches. The use of standardized tests and measures early in an episode of care establishes the baseline status of the patient/client, providing a way to measure the change in the patient's abilities. Each outcome measure is created to look at a different population or injury classification. Two outcome measures that can be used in the lower limb amputee population are the Patient Specific Functional Scale and the Rivermead Mobility Index. When comparing outcome measure one should look at the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the outcome measure they are choosing. Reliability knows that if you run a test more than one time the same result will occur each time. Validity is defined as the degree to which an instrument measures what we intend to measure. Responsiveness has been defined as the ability of an instrument to accurately detect change when it has occurred. Both the Patient Specific Functional Scale(PSFS) and the Rivermead Mobility index are patient administered questionnaire.
…show more content…
The PSFS is measured on an 11 point scale, 0 being unable to complete task and 10 being able to complete at a level prior to injury on five to seven different functional task the patient chooses. The Rivermead is made up of 15 set activities with specific instructions and the patient is either scored a 0 or 1 depending on if they could complete the task following the exact directions. Most importantly which tests will be able to provide the best information? When looking at reliability the Rivermead had excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99) and the PSFS had excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.83), both were examined for reliability but indifferent ways the Rivermead looked at if the patient took the test two different times how closely would the result match and the PSFS looked at if two different testers administered the test how would the results compare, both test are considered excellent for reliability but would measured differently so they cannot be perfectly compared. When looking at the validity of the two tests only the Rivermead was examined for its validity in the amputee population. The Rivermead has Adequate concurrent validity with TWT (r = -0.58), and also looking at convergent validity the Rivermead had excellent correlation with motFIM at beginning of prosthetic training (r = 0.83), excellent correlation with motFIM at end of prosthetic training (r = 0.69), excellent correlation with TWT (timed walking test) at end of prosthetic training (r = -0.70). Concurrent validity is a measure of how well a particular test correlates with a previously validated measure. Convergent validity looks if a test is highly correlated with other tests designed to measure similar concepts. The PSFS has been examined and shown to be valid in other populations but it was not examined for the amputee population. Finally responsiveness, in the PSFS it measured MDC at 11.2, which means that a patient needs to score at least 11 point better than they did previously for the patient or therapist to notice a change. With the Rivermead its MDC was measured at 2.2. With both of the test having different max scores it would help to convert the scores the percents of the max to compare the two. For the PSFS needs a change of 16% and the Rivermead
The PSFS is measured on an 11 point scale, 0 being unable to complete task and 10 being able to complete at a level prior to injury on five to seven different functional task the patient chooses. The Rivermead is made up of 15 set activities with specific instructions and the patient is either scored a 0 or 1 depending on if they could complete the task following the exact directions. Most importantly which tests will be able to provide the best information? When looking at reliability the Rivermead had excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99) and the PSFS had excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.83), both were examined for reliability but indifferent ways the Rivermead looked at if the patient took the test two different times how closely would the result match and the PSFS looked at if two different testers administered the test how would the results compare, both test are considered excellent for reliability but would measured differently so they cannot be perfectly compared. When looking at the validity of the two tests only the Rivermead was examined for its validity in the amputee population. The Rivermead has Adequate concurrent validity with TWT (r = -0.58), and also looking at convergent validity the Rivermead had excellent correlation with motFIM at beginning of prosthetic training (r = 0.83), excellent correlation with motFIM at end of prosthetic training (r = 0.69), excellent correlation with TWT (timed walking test) at end of prosthetic training (r = -0.70). Concurrent validity is a measure of how well a particular test correlates with a previously validated measure. Convergent validity looks if a test is highly correlated with other tests designed to measure similar concepts. The PSFS has been examined and shown to be valid in other populations but it was not examined for the amputee population. Finally responsiveness, in the PSFS it measured MDC at 11.2, which means that a patient needs to score at least 11 point better than they did previously for the patient or therapist to notice a change. With the Rivermead its MDC was measured at 2.2. With both of the test having different max scores it would help to convert the scores the percents of the max to compare the two. For the PSFS needs a change of 16% and the Rivermead