ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Translation, Reliability, and Validity of the French Version of the

Amputee Mobility Predictor
Marie-Élène Côté-Martin, PT, Andrée Tremblay, PT, Mélanie Couture, OT, MSc, Jean-Sébastien Roy, PT, PhD

ABSTRACT
Introduction: The Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP) is an instrument designed to evaluate ambulatory capacity with and with-
out a prosthesis in persons with lower-limb amputation. The purpose of the study is to cross-culturally adapt and translate the
AMP into French (AMP-F), and to determine the reliability and construct validity of AMP-F.
Materials and Methods: The AMP was translated and cross-culturally adapted to French following standardized procedures.
Thereafter, the AMP-F was subjected to psychometric evaluation with 30 participants with lower-limb amputation. Each partic-
ipant completed the AMP-F three times: once with each of the two raters on the day of the first evaluation (interrater reliability)
and a third time at the second evaluation by one of the two raters, held within 9 days of the first (intrarater reliability). Other tests
completed at the second evaluation include the Locomotor Capabilities Index questionnaire and the 6-minute walk test, admin-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVPZyxlQxTREHj6lb2497zdnC++d1/k9zjuj8Vrs2Ecgf on 06/23/2020

istered to measure construct validity.

Results: The AMP-F was developed as a result of the translation process. It showed excellent intrarater (intraclass correlation
coefficient [ICC] = 0.97; MDC90, 7.0) and interrater (ICC = 0.95; MDC90, 6.3) reliability. Correlations were high between the
AMP-F and the 6-minute walk test (r = 0.71) as well as the Locomotor Capabilities Index in persons with amputation (r = 0.88).
Conclusions: The AMP-F is a reliable and valid instrument for the evaluation of ambulatory capacity in individuals with lower-
limb amputation. The AMP-F will allow clinicians residing in a francophone country to have access to a valid and reliable instru-
ment for the evaluation of ambulatory capacity with and without prosthesis in individuals with lower-limb amputation.
(J Prosthet Orthot. 2020;32:101–106)
KEY INDEXING TERMS: person with amputation, mobility, predictor, translation, questionnaire, reliability, validity

MARIE-ÉLÈNE CÔTÉ-MARTIN, PT; ANDRÉE TREMBLAY, PT; and
MÉLANIE COUTURE, OT, MSc, are affiliated with the Centre Intégré
Universitaire de Santé et Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale
(Institut de Réadaptation en Déficience Physique de Québec), Quebec
City, Quebec, Canada.
JEAN-SÉBASTIEN ROY, PT, PhD, is affiliated with the Rehabilitation
Department, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City,
Quebec, Canada, and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Reha-
bilitation and Social Integration, Centre Intégré Universitaire de
Santé et Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale (Institut de
Réadaptation en Déficience Physique de Québec), Quebec City,
Quebec, Canada.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct
URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the
HTML and PDF version of this article on the journal's Web site
(https://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/pages/default.aspx).
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding: This study was funded by the Institut de Réadaptation en
Déficience Physique de Québec, as part of its program in support of
clinical research.
Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists.
Correspondence to: Jean-Sébastien Roy, PT, PhD, Centre for In-
terdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integra-
tion, Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services Sociaux
de la Capitale-Nationale (Institut de Réadaptation en Déficience
Physique de Québec) 525, Boulevard Wilfrid Hamel, Quebec
City, Quebec, Canada G1M 2S8; email: jean-sebastien.roy@rea.
ulaval.ca
W
ith a prevalence of one person in 190 in the United
States,1 persons with amputation are frequently en-
countered in rehabilitation contexts. Although individ-
uals with lower-limb amputation often experience a decrease in
mobility, the use of prosthesis is an option that can allow for
greater ambulatory independence. Numerous outcome measures
have been developed for the evaluation of functional capacity in
persons with amputation. There is, however, only one instrument
that both evaluates functional capacity and predicts the person
with amputation's potential to ambulate with a prosthesis: the
Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP), developed by Gailey et al.2
The AMP evaluates a variety of factors believed to contribute
to functional capacity. Measured variables include balance, trans-
fers, coordination, agility, and vestibular function. It also evalu-
ates changes in direction during walking, obstacle avoidance,
and stair performance.2 For clinicians, the principal advantage
of this instrument is that it may be used in patients who have
not yet been fitted with a prosthetic limb. Thus, the AMP can
be used to aid clinicians in determining if the patient may suc-
cessfully be fitted with a prosthesis and, if so, give an indication
of the type of prosthetic components that would be best suited.
In fact, in a study comparing the AMPnoPRO to two other motor
skills tests, the AMPnoPRO was found to be the best instrument
for predicting the ambulatory capacity of the individual with
amputation.3
The psychometric properties of the original English version
of the AMP have been demonstrated.2,4,5 These include construct,
predictive, and concurrent validity (for the latter: r = 0.69 for the

Volume 32 • Number 2 • 2020 101

Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Côté-Martin et al.
AMPnoPRO and r = 0.82 for the AMPPRO, when comparing with
the 6-minute walk test), as well as interrater and intrarater reli-
ability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.96 for the
AMPnoPRO and AMPPRO; minimal detectable change [MDC]
of 3.4 points). The AMP has also been successfully adapted into
Norwegian.6 Despite the clinical pertinence of this instru-
ment, no French version of the AMP was found. A French ver-
sion is necessary to standardize practice in French-speaking
environments.
In order to use an instrument with different language groups
and in different cultural settings, the instrument must not only
be translated into the new language, but it must also be adapted
to the local culture.7,8 The purpose of this study was to perform
a translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original ver-
sion of the AMP into French and to evaluate the validity and re-
liability of the new version.
METHODS
TRANSLATION AND CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION
In accordance with recommended standard procedures,7 the
original version of the AMP was translated and cross-culturally
adapted into French following five steps: step 1—initial transla-
tion: two bilingual translators (a physiotherapist and an occupa-
tional therapist) who speak French as a first language performed
the forward translation; step 2—synthesis of the translations;
step 3–back translation: two other bilingual translators (a phys-
iotherapist and an occupational therapist) who speak English as
a first language translated the French version back into English;
step 4—expert committee: creation of a prefinal version of the
instrument with conceptual equivalence to the original; step
5—test of the prefinal version: the prefinal version was field-
tested on six persons with amputation by four physiotherapists
who each have more than 2 years' experience working with in-
dividuals with amputation. Following administration of the
test, the physiotherapists and the participants were each asked
whether they found that the directions given to the latter dur-
ing the test were clear and easy to understand. The expert com-
mittee then met to discuss and refine the French version of the
AMP (AMP-F) based on the findings of the field testing, and the
final French version was produced.
PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE FINAL AMP-F
Potential participants aged 18 years and older undergoing
evaluation and treatment for an amputation at the Centre Intégré
Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Capitale-
Nationale (CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale), located in Quebec
City, Canada, were invited to take part in this study. Inclusion
criteria for participation were to have a lower-limb amputation,
be fitted with a prosthesis or identified as having the potential
for prosthetic fitting, have a functional lower limb as well as at
least one upper functional limb, and have French as their prin-
cipal spoken language or mother tongue. Potential participants
with double lower-limb amputations, triple or quadruple ampu-
tations, or only a partial foot amputation were excluded. All
102
Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics
potential participants signed informed consent forms. This
project was approved by the sectorial rehabilitation and social
integration research ethics committee of the CIUSSS de la
Capitale-Nationale (project #2013–325).
All participants took part in two evaluation sessions. During
the first evaluation (T1), demographic, occupational, clinical,
and medical history data of the participants were obtained, and
a first physiotherapist administered the AMP-F. Thirty minutes
later, a second physiotherapist blinded to the results of the first
also evaluated the participants with the AMP-F to determine the
interrater reliability.
Two to 9 days following T1, the participants took part in a
second evaluation session (T2), and the AMP-F was administered
a third time by one of the two raters of T1, so that the intrarater
reliability could be established. The evaluating physiotherapist
at T2 was blinded to the results of the previous evaluation. Dur-
ing the same session (T2), participants completed the Locomo-
tor Capabilities Index (LCI),9 a self-administered questionnaire,
and took the 6-minute walk test,10 administered by a physio-
therapist. The results of the latter two tests were used to deter-
mine the AMP-F's construct validity. In addition, participants
responded to a question on their perceived change since the first
evaluation (global rating of change [GROC]), in order to confirm
the stability of their condition since T1.11 They were asked the
following question: “Overall, has there been any change in your
condition (worse, about the same, better) since the initial evalu-
ation?” Only those participants whose condition had not changed
since the initial evaluation were considered for the evaluation of
intrarater reliability. All evaluations were held at the CIUSSS de
la Capitale-Nationale.
OUTCOME MEASURES
The AMP, which can be used for persons with amputation
with or without a fitted prosthesis, consists of an evaluation ta-
ble used to evaluate the potential of individuals with amputation
to ambulate with or without a prosthetic limb.2 This instrument
evaluates the performance of 21 tasks, for a maximal total score
of 43 (without a prosthesis) and 47 points (with a prosthesis). The
majority of the items are assessed on a 3-point scale (0, unable to
do the task; 1, does the task partially or with assistance; 2, does the
task independently),2 whereas others are scored on a 2-point scale
(0, unable to do the task; 1, does the task independently). Finally,
a score on a 6-point scale is attributed at the end of the test in or-
der to indicate the type of walking aid that was used.
The Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI) is a self-report ques-
tionnaire that evaluates the ability of persons with lower-limb
amputation to ambulate when using a prosthesis.9 It consists
of 14 questions divided into two sections (basic and advanced
ambulatory capacity) and is scored with a 4-point score ranging
from 0 (unable) to 3 (yes, independently). Maximal scores are 21
for each section and 42 overall. The content, construct, and con-
current validity, as well as the test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.80)
of this instrument have been established.12,13 This test was cho-
sen to validate the AMP-F as it has been validated in French.
The 6-minute walk test10 measures the distance walked in
6 minutes. Numerous studies in diverse populations including
Volume 32 • Number 2 • 2020
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics
individuals with amputation (ICCs > 0.79)14,15 have demon-
strated that this test is valid and reliable.16–19 This test is also
strongly correlated with other functional measures in individ-
uals with lower-limb amputation with a prosthetic limb.2
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
All analyses were conducted with SPSS software (Version
24 for Mac; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). The alpha level was
set at 0.05.
Reliability
To establish the reliability of AMP, ICC (model 2.1) and their
associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The
ICC value was considered to reflect the following: poor reliabil-
ity, less than 0.20; fair reliability, between 0.21 and 0.40; moder-
ate reliability, between 0.41 and 0.60; good reliability, between
0.61 and 0.80; and excellent reliability, 0.81 or greater.20 Abso-
lute reliability was established with standard errors of measure-
ment (SEM) and MDC.21 The MDC (MDC90) was calculated by
multiplying the z-score corresponding to the level of signifi-
cance (z-score of 1.65), the square root of 2, and the SEM.22
Agreement within and between raters was determined using
the Bland-Altman plotting method.23 The limits of agreement
were computed as the mean difference ± 1.96 times its standard
deviation.
Construct Validity
Floor and ceiling effects were considered if more than 15% of
the participants had the lowest (0) or the highest (43 or 47) pos-
sible total score. Construct convergent validity was assessed
with Pearson correlations by evaluating whether the AMP-F cor-
related with the LCI and with the 6-minute walk test.10 Correla-
tions were categorized as follows: high, 0.7 or greater; moderate,
between 0.5 and 0.69; and low, between 0.26 and 0.49. The a
priori hypothesis was that strong correlations would be observed
between the AMP-F and the LCI, as these two tests measure sim-
ilar concepts. A strong correlation with the 6-minute walk test
was also expected, as this test correlates strongly with the En-
glish version of the AMP. Using independent t-tests, known-
group validity of the AMP-F was evaluated by comparing partic-
ipants who did not use mobility aids or used only a cane to those
who used crutches or a walker.
RESULTS
CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION AND TESTING OF
THE PREFINAL VERSION (STEP 5)
Forward and backward translation of the AMP did not reveal
major difficulties. The six persons with amputation (four men
and two women; mean age, 60.5 ± 10.9 years) and four physio-
therapists (four women; years of experience, 20.3 ± 14.9 years;
years of experience with persons with amputation, 9.1 ± 8.5 years)
that were interviewed reported comprehension difficulties or
suggested improvement/clarification of six items in the AMP-F.
A few minor changes were thus made to the French version of
the AMP, and this modified version was used for subsequent
steps (see Supplementary Digital Content, http://links.lww.
Volume 32 • Number 2 • 2020
Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
French Version of the AMP
com/JPO/A35, http://links.lww.com/JPO/A34). An overview of
the adaptations made to the original test and endorsed by the ex-
pert committee is presented in Table 1.
PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE
FINAL VERSION
Thirty subjects entered the study. Their baseline character-
istics are presented in Table 2. All participants took part in
both evaluation sessions. At T2, 11 participants reported that
their condition was stable (GRC = 2), and they were conse-
quently included in the intrarater reliability analyses. All 30
participants were included in the interrater reliability and
the validity analyses.
Reliability
The intrarater (ICC = 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88–0.99]) and interrater
(ICC = 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90–0.98]) reliability of AMP-F was excel-
lent. For the absolute error of intrarater measurement, the SEM
was 3.0 AMP points and the MDC90 was 7.0 AMP points. For
interrater measurements, the SEM represented 2.7 AMP points
and the MDC90 represented 6.3 AMP points. The Bland-Altman
plots revealed that intrarater differences (mean difference, 2.6
[standard deviation, 7.3]; limits of agreement, −11.8 to 17.0)
for the AMP-F were centered around zero (i.e., no bias indicated;
Figure 1).
Construct Validity
No participant had the lowest or the highest possible scores
on the AMP-F at T1 or T2. Therefore, no floor or ceiling effect
was observed. Correlations were high between the AMP-F and
the 6-minute walk test (r = 0.71) and the Locomotor Capabil-
ities Index in persons with amputation (r = 0.88). The AMP-F
was able to discriminate between participants who did not use
mobility aids or used only a cane and those who used crutches
or a walker (P = 0.023).
DISCUSSION
The objective of this study was to translate, cross-culturally
adapt, and validate the AMP and thus to create a reliable and
valid version of this instrument adapted to use in francophone
environments.
As hypothesized, high correlations were obtained between
the AMP-F and the 6-minute walk test as well as the Locomotor
Capabilities Index in persons with amputation. A strong correla-
tion with the LCI was expected, as this questionnaire includes
questions on basic and advanced ambulatory capacity,13 with
items similar to those evaluated by the AMP-F. As for the
6-minute walk test,10 it requires the test-taker to walk on a
stable surface for 6 minutes with minimal breaks and mea-
sures walking endurance.24 During the AMP, however, the
person completing the test is allowed to take as many breaks
as he or she likes without being penalized. Clinically, it is not
unusual to have a patient with amputation that ambulates well
in stairs or on grass, but does not have the endurance to ambu-
late safely in the community. Such a person could thus have a
103
Côté-Martin et al. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics

Table 1. Modifications to the French translation of the AMP

# Task Physiotherapist Comments Modifications

3 The client is seated upright in a chair without
armrests. The evaluator instructs the client
to move from one chair to the other. The
second chair is positioned at 90° in relation
to the first. The person with amputation
can choose to do the transfer to the
amputated side or to the unaffected side.
Use of hands is permitted.
5 If the client stands up without the use of their
hands in task 4, award them the highest
score for task 5. If the client tries to stand
up without using their hands in task 4 and
does not succeed, evaluate task 5 with
no penalty.
8 Stopwatch in hand, the evaluator asks the
person with amputation to stand on the
unaffected leg for 30 seconds, then on the
fitted leg. The evaluator takes note of the
performance on each leg, unless the person
with amputation is being evaluated
without his/her prothesis, in which
case the score for the fitted side is
disregarded.
11 The client stands upright, feet 5 to 10 cm
apart (2 to 4 inches). Stopwatch in hand,
the evaluator asks the client to close their
eyes and hold the position for 30 seconds.
12 The client stands upright, feet 5 to 10 cm
apart. The evaluator places a pencil or a
similar object of equal length on the floor,
in alignment with the person with
amputation's midline, and 30 cm from
the tips of their feet. The client is asked
to pick up the object without moving their
feet or bending their knees and, if they
deem it safe, without support.
Mention that the second chair has
armrests (according to the list
of materials).
It is difficult to understand the
scoring procedure when the
participant does not manage
to stand up during the first trial.
The task description is clear in the
questionnaire, but according to the
starting instructions, the task is
not scored if the limb is not fitted.
Proposed modification: indicate
that if the person with amputation
completes the test without a
prosthesis, the score for task 7
should be attributed to task 8.
The instructions for this task are
clear, but it would be helpful to
indicate the interval of
30 seconds on the scoring form.
How should this item be scored when
the client bends their knees? With
straight knees, this task evaluates
flexibility rather than balance.
The client is seated upright in a chair without
armrests. The evaluator instructs the client
to move to the chair with armrests. The
second chair is positioned at 90° in relation
to the first. The person with amputation can
choose to do the transfer to the amputated
side or to the unaffected side. Use of hands
is permitted.
If the client stands up without the use of their
hands in task 4, award them the highest
score for task 5.
If the client tries to stand up without using
their hands in task 4 and does not succeed,
evaluate task 5.
Remove the statement at the beginning of the
test suggesting elimination of task 8 when
the person with amputation is not fitted
with a prosthesis.
The evaluator takes note of the performance
on each leg, unless the person with
amputation is being evaluated without
his/her prothesis, in which case the score
for the fitted side is disregarded.
No change.
The client stands upright, feet 5 to 10 cm
apart. The evaluator places a pencil or
a similar object of equal length on the
floor, in alignment with the person with
amputation's midline, and 30 cm from the
tips of their feet. The client is asked to pick
up the object without moving their feet or
crouching down and, if they deem it safe,
without support.

high score on the AMP and the LCI, but would probably perform
less well in the 6-minute walk test.
Despite the high correlation between the LCI and the AMP-
F, the latter remains clinically pertinent as it allows clinicians
to observe patients with amputation completing different am-
bulatory tasks, and thus to base their judgment of the individ-
ual's ambulatory capacity on what they have seen, rather than
solely on that which the patient has reported to them. Indeed,
clinicians need to observe the patients in a variety of situa-
tions in order to build their clinical understanding of the sit-
uation. This allows them to either corroborate or identify the
disagreements of their findings compared with the results of
the self-report LCI questionnaire, and decrease the effect of
bias related to the individual's own perception of his/her
ambulatorycapacity. In fact, a study of persons with amputa-
tion demonstrated that the majority of participants reported
their activity level differently than measured by an activity
monitor.25 Thus, when evaluating persons with amputation,
it is useful to administer validated tests as well as self-
report questionnaires.
The intrarater and interrater reliability of the AMP-F were
found to be excellent, similar to the original AMP. However,
the MDC determined in the current study (7.0 intrarater and
6.3 interrater) is double that of the English version (3.4
intrarater).5 This may be explained by this study's smaller sam-
ple size (intrarater: n = 11 compared with 42 in Resnik and
Borgia's study)5 as well as by certain differing characteristics be-
tween the two study populations. For example, in the current
study, many of the participants were recently amputated; their
condition was thus more variable and a number of them could
not be included in the intrarater analysis. In Resnik and Borgia's
study, participants needed to have been amputated for at least
2 years before the beginning of the study and been using their
current prosthesis for a minimum of 6 months.5

104 Volume 32 • Number 2 • 2020

Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics French Version of the AMP

The French version of the AMP is a pertinent instrument for

use in francophone clinical environments. In rehabilitation, as
mentioned by Condie et al., “…the measurement of outcome
has gained increasing importance in recent years, driven pri-
marily by the need for evidence-based practice…”26 As amputa-
tions and the associated rehabilitation are costly,27,28 it is
important to be able to demonstrate the efficacy and pertinence
of the applied interventions. Thus, clinicians seek to use instru-
ments that have good psychometric properties, are easy to use,
and require little time and material.29 In their article, Pell
et al.30 state that in order to improve the quality of life of per-
sons with amputation, clinicians need to focus on improving
mobility. Considering this context, the AMP and AMP-F are use-
ful clinical tools with good psychometric properties, and they
can allow clinicians to determine the ambulatory profile of pa- Figure 1. Bland-Altman plots for agreement between AMP-F scores at
tients with amputation quickly (~15 minutes) and with only a T1 and T2.
few pieces of equipment.
With regards to the clinical utility of the AMP, it allows cli-
nicians to evaluate ambulatory capacity throughout the reha- the patient and to use clinical resources efficiently, both in
bilitation process and to measure progress. Clinicians can terms of treatment plan and prosthetic components.31 Fur-
thus appreciate the impact of their treatment plan and justify thermore, discussions concerning prognosis can help persons
the continuation or completion of the rehabilitation of the pa- with amputation to plan and organize their environment in
tient with amputation. In addition, the predictive value of the advance, including home, work, and social environments.32
AMPnoPro is particularly pertinent. As this tool is indicative of In validating the AMP-F, modifications to improve the origi-
the functional potential of the individual with amputation, cli- nal version were proposed. As is shown in Table 1, questions 3,
nicians can use its results to communicate the prognosis to 5, 8, 11, and 12 underwent minor changes in order to ensure
a common understanding of the directives and to facilitate use
of the instrument. For example, considering that task 8 is meant
Table 2. Participants' characteristics at baseline
to be scored on the nonamputated side, we suggest removal of
the direction to eliminate task 8 when evaluating individuals
Inpatient Outpatient with amputation who do not have a prosthesis. In addition, we
(n = 13) (n = 17) suggest that slight knee flexion be accepted when picking up
Sex an object from the floor (task 12), so that balance, rather than
Male 12 11 posterior chain flexibility, is measured.
Female 1 6 Certain factors may have influenced the results of the current
Mean age 64.1 ± 7.1 y 57.8 ± 12.6 y study. First, of the 30 participants, 19 reported a change in their
Amputation level condition at the second evaluation. Intrarater reliability was
Syme 0 1 thus calculated with the results of 11 subjects, whereas data
Transtibial 10 11 from 30 participants could be used to calculate interrater reli-
Gritti 2 ability. The changes in condition may be attributed to the re-
Transfemoral 1 5
cruited population, which was principally composed of persons
Reason for amputation
Dysvascular 8 9
with amputation at the end of rehabilitation or at 6-week
Infection 3 0 follow-up following rehabilitation. Finally, the relatively short
Trauma 2 6 delay between evaluations 1 and 2, namely 2 to 9 days (mean
Cancer 0 2 of 6.1 days), was chosen in order to minimize variation in partic-
Mean time since amputation 5.6 mo 6.6 mo ipants' condition over the course of the study.
Mean time since prosthetic fitting 4 wk 15 wk
Use of mobility aid
Cane 4 6
Walker 6 4 CONCLUSIONS
Axillary crutches 3 4 This study demonstrated that the AMP-F has good construct
None 0 3
validity and excellent reliability for the evaluation of ambula-
Occupation status
Employed 4 6 tory capacity in individuals with lower-limb amputation. Its
Retired 8 7 use allows French language clinicians to obtain an objective
Unemployed 1 4 measure predicting the ambulatory potential of recently ampu-
tated persons.

Volume 32 • Number 2 • 2020 105

Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Côté-Martin et al.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by Institut de Réadaptation en Déficience
Physique de Québec (IRDPQ) as part of its program in support of
clinical research.
The authors wish to thank all the participants, service users, and phys-
iotherapists who accepted participation in this study; special thanks to
Diane Poiré (physiotherapist) and Danny Leclerc (clinical coordinator)
for their significant contributions to the study.
The authors also thank Sophie Bouffard for compiling the data as well
as Maureen Bisson and Caroline Rahn for their contributions to the
translation.
REFERENCES
1. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating
the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89(3):422–429.
2. Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, et al. The Amputee Mobility
Predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb
amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;
83(5):613–627.
3. Spaan MH, Vrieling AH, van de Berg P, et al. Predicting mobility
outcome in lower limb amputees with motor ability tests used in
early rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2017;41(2):171–177.
4. Gailey RS. Predictive outcome measures versus functional outcome
measures in the lower limb amputee. J Prosthet Orthot 2006;18:51–60.
5. Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability of outcome measures for people
with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from
statistical error. Phys Ther 2011;91(4):555–565.
6. Bernhardsen Ø. The amputee mobility predictor; translation into
Norwegian and inter-rater reliability. In: ISPO World Congress 2015
Abstract Book. Lyon: Sage; 2015.
7. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for
the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures.
Spine 2000;25(24):3186–3191.
8. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of
health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed
guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46(12):1417–1432.
9. Grisé MC, Gauthier-Gagnon C, Martineau GG. Prosthetic profile of
people with lower extremity amputation: conception and design of a
follow-up questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74(8):862–870.
10. Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, et al. Two-, six-, and 12-minute
walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1982;
284(6329):1607–1608.
11. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G. Measurement of health status.
Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control
Clin Trials 1989;4(10):407–415.
12. Gauthier-Gagnon C, Grisé MC. Prosthetic profile of the amputee
questionnaire: validity and reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
1994;75(12):1309–1314.
13. Gauthier-Gagnon C, Grisé M-C, Lepage Y, et al. The Locomotor
Capabilities Index: Content validity. J Rehab Outcomes Measure
1998;2(4):40–46.
14. Lahiri S, Das PG. Reliability of the six-minute walk test in individuals
with transtibial amputation. Indian J Physiother Occup Ther 6(2):
100–102.
106
Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics
15. Lin S-J, Bose NH. Six-minute walk test in persons with transtibial
amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89(12):2354–2359.
16. Demers C, McKelvie RS, Negassa A, Yusuf S. RESOLVD pilot
study investigators. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of
the six-minute walk test in patients with heart failure. Am Heart
J 2001;142(4):698–703.
17. Hamilton DM, Haennel RG. Validity and reliability of the 6-minute
walk test in a cardiac rehabilitation population. J Cardiopulm
Rehabil 2000;20(3):156–164.
18. Li AM, Yin J, Yu CCW, et al. The six-minute walk test in healthy
children: reliability and validity. Eur Respir J 2005;25(6):
1057–1060.
19. Harada ND, Chiu V, Stewart AL. Mobility-related function in older
adults: assessment with a 6-minute walk test. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 1999;80(7):837–841.
20. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT
statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and
elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(8):663–694.
21. Portney L, Watkins M. Statistical Measures of Validity. Foundations
of Clinical Research Applications to Practice. 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle
River: Mcgraw-Hill/Appleton & Lange; 2009.
22. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical
practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res
Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 1995;4(4):293–307.
23. Smith MW, Ma J, Stafford RS. Bar charts enhance Bland-Altman
plots when value ranges are limited. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63(2):
180–184.
24. McGavin CR, Gupta SP, McHardy GJ. Twelve-minute walking
test for assessing disability in chronic bronchitis. Br Med J
1976;1(6013):822–823.
25. Stepien JM, Cavenett S, Taylor L, Crotty M. Activity levels among
lower-limb amputees: self-report versus step activity monitor.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88(7):896–900.
26. Condie E, Scott H, Treweek S. Lower limb prosthetic outcome
measures: a review of the literature 1995 to 2005. J Prosthet
Orthot 2006;18:P13–P45.
27. MacKenzie EJ, Jones AS, Bosse MJ, et al. Health-care costs associated
with amputation or reconstruction of a limb-threatening injury. J
Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89(8):1685–1692.
28. Johnson BF, Evans L, Drury R, et al. Surgery for limb threatening
ischaemia: a reappraisal of the costs and benefits. Eur J Vasc
Endovasc Surg 1995;9(2):181–188.
29. Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. Obtaining useful information from
expert based sources. BMJ 1997;314(7085):947–949.
30. Pell JP, Donnan PT, Fowkes FG, Ruckley CV. Quality of life
following lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease.
Eur J Vasc Surg 1993;7(4):448–451.
31. Davies B, Datta D. Mobility outcome following unilateral lower
limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003;27(3):186–190.
32. Sansam K, Neumann V, O'Connor R, Bhakta B. Predicting
walking ability following lower limb amputation: a systematic
review of the literature. J Rehabil Med 2009;41(8):593–603.
Volume 32 • Number 2 • 2020