Polish Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Lower Limb Functional Index (LLFI) Demonstrates a Valid Outcome Measure for the Lower Limb Region and Joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended to enable the standardization of collected data and provide accurate representation of the patients’ subjective opinions of their functional capabilities. The purpose of this study was to perform linguistic and cross-cultural adaptation to establish a Polish version of the Lower Limb Functional Index (LLFI), and to evaluate the psychometric properties of internal consistency, reliability, error score, validity, and factor structure with standardized criteria PROMs in a population with lower limb problems.Methods: Linguistic and cultural adaptation complied with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines to produce the Lower Limb Functional Index - Polish version (LLFI-PL). The study recruited subjects (n = 125, age = 52.86 ± 19.53 years, range 20–87, 56% female, injury duration = 17.69 ± 18.39 weeks, range 5–71). Baseline reliability and criterion validity included the LLFI-PL, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Euroqol Health Questionnaire 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L), and an 11-point pain Numerical Rating Scale, with retest at 3–7 days. Practicality for readability was considered within the face and content validity. Completion and scoring time were also calculated.Results: Statistical analysis showed excellent internal consistency (α = 0.94) and high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96). The error score found the SEM = 3.49% with MDC90 = 8.11%. Validity analysis showed strong correlations between the LLFI-PL with the WOMAC (r=-0.81) and moderate with the EQ-5D-5L (r=-0.63). Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a single-factor structure. Times for completion (172 ± 33 seconds) and scoring (20 ± 9 seconds) were determined.Conclusions: The LLFI-PL is a psychometrically sound questionnaire for Polish-speaking patients with lower limb musculoskeletal conditions. The results support the findings of previous original-English, Spanish, and Turkish versions for internal consistency, validity, reliability, error score, and factor structure.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".