Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40828778›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2025

Evaluating the construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Orthotic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Mobility (OPRO-M) short forms in lower limb orthosis users.

Geoffrey S Balkman, Phillip M Stevens, Eric L Weber, Alyssa M Bamer, Rana Salem, Bretta L Fylstra, Sara J Morgan, Brian J Hafner

Abstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Geoffrey S BalkmanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1087-4647
Phillip M StevensHanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Eric L WeberHanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Alyssa M BamerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Rana SalemDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Bretta L FylstraHanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, Texas, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8167-0246
Sara J MorganDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Brian J HafnerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6175-1869

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lower limb orthoses (LLOs) are often prescribed to facilitate mobility in individuals with functional impairments. The Orthotic Patient-Reported Outcomes - Mobility (OPRO-M) is a self-report instrument developed recently to measure LLO users' perceived mobility with an orthosis. An observational, prospective, psychometric validation study was conducted to evaluate the construct validity and test-retest reliability of the OPRO-M 12- and 20-item short forms. LLO users were recruited from orthotic clinics across the United States. Participants were administered four self-report instruments (OPRO-M, Orthotic and Prosthetic Users Survey - Lower Extremity Functional Status, Lower Extremity Functional Scale, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System - Physical Function) and three performance-based instruments (10-meter Walk Test, Timed Up and Go Test, and Two-Minute Walk Test) during an in-person assessment. Self-report instruments were re-administered via an online survey sent to participants 7 days later. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing OPRO-M scores to those from co-administered self-report and performance-based instruments. Known groups validity was evaluated by comparing scores from patients grouped by clinician-assigned mobility level. Test-retest reliability was assessed by comparing scores from the in-person and follow-up assessments. Standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC) were derived from test-retest reliability coefficients. A total of 104 LLO users (51% male, mean age = 53 years) completed both assessments. OPRO-M short form scores correlated strongly with those from self-report (ρ = 0.84-0.91) and performance-based (|ρ| = 0.73-0.83) instruments. OPRO-M short form scores also effectively differentiated all mobility groups except household and limited community ambulators. The OPRO-M short forms showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.93-0.94) and low measurement error (SEM = 2.4-2.6, SDC = 5.5-6.0). These results provide sound evidence of the OPRO-M short forms' validity and reliability when used to measure mobility in LLO users. These instruments are promising, population-specific alternatives to generic surveys with psychometric performance comparable to or better than established self-report instruments.

Indexed as

Lower ExtremityOrthotic DevicesPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40828778
PMCPMC12364370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.