We're hiring! Browse jobs and apply today.
The Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS) is a self-report questionnaire consisting of five modules. It can be used for prosthetic and orthotic programs for quality assessment, to maintain awareness of improvement in activities, to evaluate changes in patient’s functional status and quality of life, and to assess satisfaction with devices and services.
Original: 87
Modified: 88
10-15 minutes
Lindner et. al. has said 10-15 minutes are required to answer the questions in all the modules.
If only one component is used then time required for completion is less than 10 minutes.
Initially reviewed by Tanmayi Patgaonkar, MHS, RPT/L in 4/2015
Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!
Unilateral Lower Limb Amputation: (Resnik, 2011; n=44, 6 months post lower limb prosthesis users)
MDC for LEFS scale=10.3
MDC for HRQOL=9.2
MDC for Device or Service Satisfaction=15.7
Unilateral Lower Limb Amputation: (Resnik, 2011)
LEFS: Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC=0.67)
HRQOL: Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85)
CSD/CSS: Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC=0.50)
Unilateral Upper Limb Amputation: (Burger, 2008; n=61, mean age=57+/- 17.1)
UEFS
Person separation Index- Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89 (23 items) and 0.88 (19 items))
Item separation Index- Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha= 0.97 (23 items) and 0.96 (19 items))
Mixed (orthotic and prosthetic users, adults and children both) population for Original OPUS: (Heinemann, 2003; n=164)
|
Person separation Index |
Item Separation Index |
|
|
LEFS |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94) |
ExcellentInternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.98) |
|
HRQOL |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) |
ExcellentInternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96) |
|
CSD |
Adequate Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74) |
ExcellentInternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86) |
|
CSS |
Adequate Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha =0.78) |
ExcellentInternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82)
|
Mixed (Adults with orthotic and prosthetics) Population for Modified OPUS: (Jarl, 2012; n=282)
|
Person Separation Index |
Item Separation Index |
|
|
LEFS |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96) |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.99) |
|
UEFS |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha =0.92) |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97) |
|
CSD |
Adequate Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75 |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96) |
|
CSS |
Adequate Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74) |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94) |
|
HRQOL-restrictions |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89) |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97) |
|
HRQOL-emotions |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89) |
Excellent Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.99) |
Mixed Population for Modified OPUS: (Jarl, 2012)
Ceiling effects for UEFS and LEFS: Adequate=2.5 to 19.6%
UE, LE prosthesis, LE orthosis, insoles, orthopedic shoes: (Jarl et. al., 2014, N=69, Swedish)
SDD (Smallest detectable difference)
LEFS: 12.1
UEFS: 14.8
CSD: 15
CSS: 16.6
HRQOL: 7.4
UE, LE prosthesis, LE orthosis, insoles, orthopedic shoes: (Jarl, 2014)
LEFS: Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC= 0.96)
UEFS: Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.89)
CSD: Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.82)
CSS: Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.77)
HRQOL: Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.91)
Orthopedic, neurological, and rheumatic orthosis using population: Bravini, 2014)
Person separation Index for CSD-IT: Adequate internal consistencyCronbach’s alpha = 0.70 (8 items))
Bettoni, E., et. al. (2014) “A systematic review of questionnaires to assess patient satisfaction with limb orthoses” P & O Intl: 1-12.
Bravini, E., et al. (2014) “Validation of the Italian version of the Client Satisfaction with Device module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey.” Disabil & Health Jour, 7: 442-447.
Burger, H. et al. (2008). "Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation." J of Rehab Med, 40.5: 393-399.
Heinemann, A. W., R. K. Bode, and C. O'Reilly. (2003). "Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments." P & O Intl, 27.3: 191-206.
Jarl, GM., Allen W. Heinemann, and Liselotte M. Norling Hermansson. (2012) "Validity evidence for a modified version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey." Disability and Rehab: Assistive Tech, 7.6: 469-478.
Jarl, G.M., and Hermansson, L.M.N. (2009) “Translation and linguistic validation of the Swedish version of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey.” P &O Intl, 33(4): 329–338.
Jarl, G., Holmefur, M., Hermansson, L. (2014) “Test–retest reliability of the Swedish version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey.” P & O Intl, 38(1): 21–26.
Lindner, HN. Natterlund, BS., & Hermansson, LMN. (2010) “Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures: Review and content comparison based on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.” P & O Intl, 34(2): 109–128.
Resnik, L., Borgia, M. (2011). “Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error.” Phys Ther, 91: 555–565.
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.