Reliability and validity of the Lower Limb Function Questionnaire when completed by young adult orthotic and prosthetic device users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The Lower Limb Function Questionnaire (LLFQ) was developed as a self-report assessment of lower-limb functional ability for orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) device users to be suitable for a wide range of conditions, cultures, and ages. The measure aims to address an existing gap in tools for the assessment of functional ability in this population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate LLFQ reliability and validity in a sample of young adult O&P users. Methods Adolescents from a secondary school in Kenya completed the LLFQ twice, 6 d apart, and test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients. Validity evaluations involved Timed Up-and-Go, 6-min walk, 6-min obstacle course, and/or spatiotemporal gait assessments. Oxygen consumption was measured during walk tests. Associations between the LLFQ and each measure were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients for construct validity. Results LLFQ reliability was acceptable (ICC = 0.79, 95% CIs 0.64-0.89). Construct validity was demonstrated via moderate correlation (r > 0.60) with obstacle course distance, gait velocity, stride length, and stance/single support/double support percent of gait cycle. Conclusions Both LLFQ reliability and validity were acceptable in the sample of youth in Kenya. Further testing is required to determine applicability in other cultural contexts. Implications for Rehabilitation The LLFQ may be clinically useful across a variety of cultures and conditions to provide feedback on the effectiveness of rehabilitative treatment or assistive devices for youth with lower limb impairments. The LLFQ may enable specific strengths and challenges to lower limb function to be identified to enable planning of well-targeted rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".