Welcome

Username:

Password:



[ ]
[ ]
[ ]

Chatbox

You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup


physicaltherapy: 05 Feb : 06:54 pm

Is there anyone who has gone through CWT6 or type 1 evaluation with FCCPT?
If so, kindly let me know from where can the following deficiencies be fulfilled?
1. History
2. Systems Review
3. Findings that warrant referral
4. Supervision of support staff
5. Documentation

nani: 28 Sep : 04:31 am

plz pleasec tell me where to do phd in india

Nikhilphysio: 02 Jun : 03:55 am

I am working as physiotherapist in Shalby hospital ahmedabad for 4 years. I have passed out from Rajiv gandhi university of health and sciences Bangalore. I want to apply for Newzealand physiotherapy board registration so anyone there from India who got registered as physiotherapist in new zealand please help me.

Arun: 10 May : 12:36 am

Hi Priyank, welcome. Feel free to go through these forum threads returned by search [link]

Priyank: 09 May : 10:28 pm

Hi..need advice. What are the options in Australia after MPT?


Forums

Moderators: Arun, Boopathi, Robin, Diana
Author Post
Sat Dec 01 2012, 12:29pm
Arun
May I help you?

Registered Member #1
Joined: Wed Jul 07 2004, 04:03pm
Location: Kottayam, Keralam
Posts: 726

Used to assess lower extremity function among patients with musculoskeletal disorders. (20 item, 5 point scale)

Authors: Jill M Binkley, Paul W Stratford, Sue Ann Lott and Daniel L Riddle

Abstract Background and Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity to change of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS).

Subjects and Methods. The LEFS was administered to 107 patients with lower-extremity musculoskeletal dysfunction referred to 12 outpatient physical therapy clinics.

Methods. The LEFS was administered during the initial assessment, 24 to 48 hours following the initial assessment, and then at weekly intervals for 4 weeks. The SF-36 (acute version) was administered during the initial assessment and at weekly intervals. A type 2,1 intraclass correlation coefficient was used to estimate test-retest reliability. Pearson correlations and one-way analyses of variance were used to examine construct validity. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship between an independent prognostic rating of change for each patient and change in the LEFS and SF-36 scores.

Results. Test-retest reliability of the LEFS scores was excellent (R=.94 [95% lower limit confidence interval (CI)=.89]). Correlations between the LEFS and the SF-36 physical function subscale and physical component score were r =.80 (95% lower limit CI=.73) and r =.64 (95% lower limit CI=.54), respectively. There was a higher correlation between the prognostic rating of change and the LEFS than between the prognostic rating of change and the SF-36 physical function score. The potential error associated with a score on the LEFS at a given point in time is ±5.3 scale points (90% CI), the minimal detectable change is 9 scale points (90% CI), and the minimal clinically important difference is 9 scale points (90% CI).

Conclusion and Discussion.
The LEFS is reliable, and construct validity was supported by comparison with the SF-36. The sensitivity to change of the LEFS was superior to that of the SF-36 in this population. The LEFS is efficient to administer and score and is applicable for research purposes and clinical decision making for individual patients.

Links
http://www.mccreadyfoundation.org/documents/LEFS.pdf
http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/79/4/371.full.pdf

lefs.pdf

 

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System