4.4 Article

The Persian version of Trinity Amputation and Prosthetics Experience Scale: translation, factor structure, reliability and validity

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 33, Issue 19-20, Pages 1737-1745

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2010.544838

Keywords

Trinity Amputation and Prosthetics Experience Scale; TAPES; amputation; Iran

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. The purpose of the present study was to translate the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetics Experience Scale (TAPES) into Persian and to investigate its psychometric properties. Method. A sample of 182 Persian-speaker individuals with lower limb amputation completed the TAPES questionnaire, of whom 103 individuals completed the Short Form 36 Health survey as well. The TAPES was re-administered to 41 participants in the retest session, with an interval of 5-7 days between the two sessions. Internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, dimensionality, item internal consistency and discriminant validity and construct validity were assessed. Results. Cronbach's alpha's were greater than the cut-off point of 0.70 for all subscales with the exception of social adjustment subscale. Minimum intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.70 was exceeded by all subscales with the exception of social activity subscale. Principle component analysis performed on each section of the TAPES revealed loading of all items on their corresponding factors. The exceptions were item 4 of social adjustment subscale and the single item of weight subscale. Most items were stronger measures of their hypothesised subscale than the other subscales. In terms of construct validity, 75% of a priori hypotheses were confirmed. Conclusions. The Persian version of TAPES seems to be a reliable and valid measure of psychological adaptation to artificial limb.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available