The Upper Extremity Functional Scale for Prosthesis Users (UEFS-P): subscales for one and two-handed tasks

References

• Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):422–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):236–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette AM. The promise of assistive technology to enhance work participation. Phys Ther. 2017;97(7):691–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Cancio J, et al. Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb veteran prosthesis users: a normative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(11):2470–2481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowley J, Resnik L, Wilken J, et al. Movement quality of conventional prostheses and the DEKA arm during everyday tasks. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(1):33–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarland LV, Winkler SLH, Heinemann AW, et al. Unilateral upper-limb loss: satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(4):299–316.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Management of Upper Extremity Amputation Rehabilitation Working Group. Washington, (DC): VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for the management of upper extremity amputation rehabilitation. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Smurr LM, Gulick K, Yancosek K, et al. Managing the upper extremity amputee: a protocol for success. J Hand Ther. 2008;21(2):160–175; quiz 176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarl GM, Heinemann AW, Norling Hermansson LM. Validity evidence for a modified version of the orthotics and prosthetics users’ survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7(6):469–478.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability and validity of outcome measures for upper limb amputation. J Prosthet Orthot. 2012;24(4):192–201.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M. Responsiveness of outcome measures for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;40(1):96–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams TWI. Mechanical changes and new control options improve the function of the LTI-Collier shoulder joint. MEC '02: The Next Generation: University of New Brunswick’s Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium; 2002 Aug 21–23; Fredericton, N.B., Canada: Myoelectric Symposium; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Jarl G, Hermansson LN. Translation and linguistic validation of the Swedish version of “Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey” (OPUS). MEC’08: Measuring Success in Upper Limb Prosthetics: University of New Brunswick’s Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium; 2008 Aug 13–15; Fredericton, N.B., Canada: Myoelectric Symposium; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Levine RE, Fowler FJ Jr., Brown JA. Role of cognitive testing in the development of the CAHPS hospital survey. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 2):2037–2056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin DE, Varni JW, Yeatts K, et al. Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl. 1):S22–S31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzo-Seva U. Why rotate my data using Promin?. Tarragona, Spain: Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando P. Factor. Tarragona, Spain: Departament de Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili; 2022. Available from: https://psico.fcep.urv.cat/utilitats/factor/Download.html
   Google Scholar
• Yen W. Scaling performance assessments: strategies for managing local item dependence. J Educ Meas. 1993;30(3):187–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate R. A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of responses to test items. Appl Psychol Meas. 2003;27(3):159–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen W, Thissen D. Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. J Educ Behav Stat. 1997;22(3):265–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthen L, Muthen B. MPlus statistical analysis with latent variables user’s guide. Los Angeles (CA): Muthen & Muthen; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Bockenholt U. Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(4):665–678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutz G. Sequential item response models with an ordered response. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1990;43(1):39–55.
   Google Scholar
• De Boeck P, Partchev I. IRTrees: tree-based item response models of the GLMM family. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(5):571–585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Zile-Tamsen C. Using Rasch analysis to inform rating scale development. Res High Educ. 2017;58(8):922–933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre J. Data variance explained by measures. Rasch Meas Trans. 1045;20:7.
   Google Scholar
• Zwick R, Thayer DT, Lewis C. An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel–Haenszel DIF analysis. J Educ Meas. 1999;36(1):1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schauberger, G. Mair, P. A regularization approach for the detection of differential item functioning in generalized partial credit models. Behav Res Methods. 2020;52(1):279–294.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Cancio J, et al. Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb veteran prosthesis users: a normative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44:1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster JB, Webster N, Borgia M, et al. Frequency, severity, and implications of shoulder pain in people with major upper limb amputation who use prostheses: results of a national study. PM R. 2021;14(8):901–912.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaat AJ, Buckenmaier CT 3rd, Cook KF, et al. The expansion and validation of a new upper extremity item bank for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(R) (PROMIS). J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019;3(1):69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnik LJ, Stevens PM, Ni P, et al. Assessment of patient-reported physical function in persons with upper extremity amputation: comparison of short form instruments drawn from the PROMIS v2.0 upper extremity item bank. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, et al. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):1038–1046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O'Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27(3):191–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar