The LIMB-Q: Reliability and Validity of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Patients with Lower Extremity Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The LIMB-Q is a novel patient-reported outcome measure for patients with lower extremity trauma. The aim of this study was to perform a psychometric validation of the LIMB-Q based on the Rasch measurement theory. METHODS: An international, multisite convenience sample of patients with lower extremity traumatic injuries distal to the midfemur was recruited from clinical sites in the United States and the Netherlands and online platforms (in English; Trauma Survivors Network patient support group and the Prolific academic research platform). A cross-sectional survey of the LIMB-Q was conducted with test-retest reliability analysis performed 1 to 2 weeks after initial completion in a subgroup of patients. RESULTS: The LIMB-Q was field-tested in 713 patients. The mean age was 41 years (SD, 17 years; range, 18 to 85 years), the mean time from injury was 7 years (SD, 9 years; range, 0 to 58 years), and there were various injury and treatment characteristics (39% fracture surgery only, 38% flap or graft, 13% amputation, 10% amputation and flap or graft). Out of 382 items tested, 164 were retained across 16 scales. Reliability was demonstrated with person separation index values of 0.80 or greater in 14 scales (0.78 to 0.79 in the remaining 2 scales), Cronbach alpha values 0.83 or greater, and intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.70 or greater. Each scale was unidimensional, measurement invariance was confirmed across clinical and demographic factors, test-retest analysis showed adequate reliability, and construct validity was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: The LIMB-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure with 16 independently functioning scales (6 to 15 items per scale) developed and validated specifically for patients with lower extremity trauma with fractures, reconstruction, or 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 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 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".