Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Prosthesis Donning and Doffing Questionnaire for Persons with Transtibial Amputations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Satisfaction with the donning and doffing procedure of prosthesis is related to the quality of life of individuals with amputation, and it should be assessed to gather information about related challenges, thus forming the basis for possible solutions. This study aimed to investigate the construct validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Prosthesis Donning and Doffing Questionnaire for individuals with transtibial amputation. Materials and Methods After a translation/retranslation process, 30 individuals with transtibial amputation were recruited to evaluate the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The participants were asked to fill in the Turkish version of the Prosthesis Donning and Doffing Questionnaire, Satisfaction with Prosthesis Survey, and the Nottingham Health Profile. The Prosthesis Donning and Doffing Questionnaire was readministered after 3 days. Results Test-retest reliability showed good intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 0.739; 95% confidence interval, 0.46–0.87). There was a statistically significant correlation between the Prosthesis Donning and Doffing Questionnaire, the Satisfaction with the Prosthesis Survey (rho = 0.419, P = 0.02), and Nottingham Health Profile (rho = −0.656, P = 0.0001), and its subsets ( P < 0.05) showed construct validity. Conclusions The Turkish version of the Prosthesis Donning and Doffing Questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to assess donning and doffing of prostheses for individuals with transtibial amputation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".