Versão Brasileira do Questionário de Satisfação com a Prótese (SAT-PRO/Br): validade estrutural, validade concorrente, consistência interna e estabilidade

Autores

  • Paulo José Barbosa Gutierres Filho Universidade de Brasília
  • Diego Rodrigues Pimentel da Silva Universidade de Brasília
  • Leonardo Dimas Ferreira Universidade de Brasília
  • David Braga Lima Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina
  • Jorge Manuel Gomes de Azevedo Fernandes Universidade de Évora
  • Rudney da Silva Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-0190.v29i4a201063

Palavras-chave:

Amputação, Próteses e Implantes, Estudo de Validação, Psicometria

Resumo

Objetivo: Analisar as propriedades psicométricas do SAT-PRO/Br através da observação da validade estrutural e concorrente, consistência interna e estabilidade. Método: A amostra deste estudo transversal foi consecutiva, não probabilística, constituída por 128 idosos com amputação de membro inferior, com amputação unilateral e que utilizavam a prótese a pelo menos um ano. As propriedades psicométricas foram avaliadas através da validade estrutural (Comparative Fit Index- CFI, Tucker-Lewis Index-TLI, Root Means Square Error of Approximation-RMSEA e  Standardized Root Mean Residual-SRMR), validade concorrente utilizando a versão brasileira da Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales - Revised (TAPES-R), além da  consistência interna dos itens pelo alfa de Cronbach e estabilidade pelo Intraclass Correlacion Coefficient (ICC). Resultados: O SAT-PRO/Br e a TAPES-R apresentaram forte correlação em relação a validade concorrente. A estabilidade variou de 0,85 a 0,91 através do ICC. Os índices de modelo do ajuste apresentaram valores de CFI de 0,991, TLI de 0,989, RMSEA de 0,045 e o SRMR de 0,074.  Observou-se uma boa consistência interna com alfa de Cronbach total de 0.91. Conclusão: As propriedades psicométricas deste estudo sobre o SAT-PRO/Br levam a concluir que esta versão é válida, confiável e apresenta boa consistência interna e estabilidade para ser aplicada em idosos brasileiros amputados de membro inferior.

Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.

Referências

Spichler ER, Spichler D, Lessa I, Costa e Forti A, Franco LJ, LaPorte RE. Capture-recapture method to estimate lower extremity amputation rates in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2001;10(5):334-40. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1020-49892001001100007

Souza YP, Dos Santos ACO, de Albuquerque LC. Characterization of amputees at a large hospital in Recife, PE, Brazil. J Vasc Bras. 2019;18:e20190064. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.190064

Schoeller SD, Silva DMGV, Vargas MAO, Borges AMF, Pires DEP, Bonetti A. Características das pessoas amputadas atendidas em um centro de reabilitação. Rev Enferm UFP. 2013;(2):445-51. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5205/reuol.3073-24791-1-LE.0702201316

DATASUS [base de dados na Internet]. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, c2022 [Citado 2022 Out 1] Disponível em: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sih/cnv/qiuf.def

De Luccia N, Silva ES. Aspectos técnicos de amputações de membros inferiores. In: Pitta GBB, Castro AA, Burihan E. Angiologia e cirurgia vascular: guia ilustrado. Maceió: UNCISAL/ECMAL & LAVA; 2003.

Spoden M, Nimptsch U, Mansky T. Amputation rates of the lower limb by amputation level - observational study using German national hospital discharge data from 2005 to 2015. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3759-5

Moxey PW, Hofman D, Hinchliffe RJ, Jones K, Thompson MM, Holt PJ. Epidemiological study of lower limb amputation in England between 2003 and 2008. Br J Surg. 2010;97(9):1348-53. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7092

Bilodeau S, Hébert R, Desrosiers J. Lower limb prosthesis utilisation by elderly amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24(2):126-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640008726535

Fortington LV, Rommers GM, Geertzen JH, Postema K, Dijkstra PU. Mobility in elderly people with a lower limb amputation: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(4):319-25. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.12.097

van Eijk MS, van der Linde H, Buijck B, Geurts A, Zuidema S, Koopmans R. Predicting prosthetic use in elderly patients after major lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012;36(1):45-52. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364611430885

Day MC, Wadey R, Strike S. Living with limb loss: everyday experiences of "good" and "bad" days in people with lower limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(20):2433-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1467502

Behr J, Friedly J, Molton I, Morgenroth D, Jensen MP, Smith DG. Pain and pain-related interference in adults with lower-limb amputation: comparison of knee-disarticulation, transtibial, and transfemoral surgical sites. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(7):963-72. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2008.07.0085

Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(14-15):837-50. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280410001708869

Murray CD, Fox J. Body image and prosthesis satisfaction in the lower limb amputee. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(17):925-31. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280210150014

Gallagher P, Maclachlan M. Adjustment to an artificial limb: a qualitative perspective. J Health Psychol. 2001;6(1):85-100. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/135910530100600107

Belon HP, Vigoda DF. Emotional adaptation to limb loss. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1):53-74. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2013.09.010

Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, Maclachlan M, Ryall N. Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(15-16):1314-23. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.529234

Roffman CE, Buchanan J, Allison GT. Predictors of non-use of prostheses by people with lower limb amputation after discharge from rehabilitation: development and validation of clinical prediction rules. J Physiother. 2014;60(4):224-31. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2014.09.003

Webster JB, Hakimi KN, Williams RM, Turner AP, Norvell DC, Czerniecki JM. Prosthetic fitting, use, and satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: a prospective study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(10):1453-1504.

Gailey R, Allen K, Castles J, Kucharik J, Roeder M. Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(1):15-29. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2006.11.0147

Belon HP, Vigoda DF. Emotional adaptation to limb loss. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1):53-74. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2013.09.010

Kark L, Simmons A. Patient satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: the role of gait deviation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(2):225-33. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364611406169

Burden N, Simpson J, Murray C, Overton PG, Powell PA. Prosthesis use is associated with reduced physical self-disgust in limb amputees. Body Image. 2018;27:109-117. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.001

Bilodeau S, Hébert R, Desrosiers J. Questionnaire on the satisfaction of persons with lower-limb amputations towards their prosthesis: development and validation. Can J Occup Ther. 1999;66(1):23-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749906600103

Safaz I, Yilmaz B, Goktepe AS, Taskaynatan MA, Yazicioglu K. Reliability and validity of satisfaction with prothesis (SATPRO) questionnarie in patient with lower limb amputation. Nobel Medicus. 2010;6(3):9-12.

Gutierres Filho PJB, Fernandes JMGA, Ferreira LD, Lima DB, Silva DRP, Silva R. Tradução e adaptação transcultural do Questionnaire de Satisfaction de la Personne Amputée face à sa Prothèse (SAT-PRO) para a língua portuguesa do Brasil. Acta Fisiatr. 2020;27(1):20-6. Doi: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-0190.v25i4a169145

Gremigni P. The importance of using valid and reliable measures in psychology and psychiatry. EC Psychology Psychiatry. 2020;9(4): 24-25.

Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES). Rehab Psychol. 2000;45(2):130-54. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.45.2.130

Gallagher P, Franchignoni F, Giordano A, MacLachlan M. Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: a psychometric assessment using classical test theory and rasch analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(6):487-96. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181dd8cf1

Matos DR, Naves JF, Araujo TC. Adaptação transcultural da Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales - Revised (TAPES-R): avaliação dos processos psicossociais envolvidos no ajuste à amputação e à prótese. Acta Fisiatr. 2018;25(3):124-30. Doi: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-0190.v25i3a162669

Pires GKW, Silva FC, Luza LP, Gutierres Filho PJB, Deans S, Silva R. Semantic equivalence in Brazilian Portuguese translation of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales-Revised. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020;44(2):66-72. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364620906668

Gutierres Filho PJB, Silva DRP, Pires GKW, Luza LP, Ferreira EG, Silva FC, et al. Validade e confiabilidade da versão brasileira da Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales-Revised (TAPES-R). Acta Fisiatr. 2021;28(2):116-20. Doi: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-0190.v28i2a178441

Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(4 Suppl):142S-158S. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-2456(05)80019-4

Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1-55. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-46. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull. 1974;81(6):358-61. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316

Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):166.e7-16. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74.

Yilmaz H, Gafuroğlu Ü, Ryall N, Yüksel S. Establishing the Turkish version of the SIGAM mobility scale, and determining its validity and reliability in lower extremity amputees. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(3):346-52. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1250125

Rouhani N, Esfandiari E, Babaee T, Khosravi M, Moradi V, Balouchkayvan B, et al. The comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey: reliability and validity of the persian version. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021;45(2):131-37. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364620958526

Hafner BJ, Gaunaurd IA, Morgan SJ, Amtmann D, Salem R, Gailey RS. Construct Validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in Adults With Lower Limb Amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(2):277-85. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.026

Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ, Burgess AR. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: a long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80(8):563-71. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200108000-00003

Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(2):214-21. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066

Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99-103. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

Downloads

Publicado

2022-12-28

Edição

Seção

Artigo Original

Como Citar

1.
Gutierres Filho PJB, Silva DRP da, Ferreira LD, Lima DB, Fernandes JMG de A, Silva R da. Versão Brasileira do Questionário de Satisfação com a Prótese (SAT-PRO/Br): validade estrutural, validade concorrente, consistência interna e estabilidade. Acta Fisiátr. [Internet]. 28º de dezembro de 2022 [citado 25º de maio de 2024];29(4):282-8. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/actafisiatrica/article/view/201063