Original ArticlesRasch validation and comparison of the German versions of the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in lower-limb prosthesis usersRanker, Alexandera; Gutenbrunner, Christopha; Eckhardt, Isabellea; Giordano, Andreab; Burger, Helenac,,d; Franchignoni, Francoe Author Information aDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical School Hannover, Germany bBioengineering Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Institute of Veruno (NO), Italy cUniversity Rehabilitation Institute dFaculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia ePhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Istituti Clinici Scientifci Maugeri, IRCCS, Institute of Tradate (VA), Italy Received 14 March 2021 Accepted 10 April 2021 Correspondence to Alexander Ranker, MD, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical School Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str.1, 30625 Hannover, Germany Tel: +49 5115324100; e-mail: [email protected] International Journal of Rehabilitation Research: September 2021 - Volume 44 - Issue 3 - p 233-240 doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000478 Buy Metrics Abstract This study aimed to compare, through Rasch analysis, the psychometric properties of the Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI-5) and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) in German lower-limb prosthesis users. The questionnaires were concurrently administered to a convenience sample of 98 consecutively recruited individuals with lower limb amputation (LLA) (male/female = 61/37; mean age 57 ± 14 years). LCI-5 showed disordered rating scale thresholds (one response option in three items required collapsing); local dependence between two items (resolved by creating a testlet); underfit of one item (‘Get up from the floor’); and presence of a second weak dimension. PMQ 2.0 showed a correctly functioning rating scale; good fit of the data to the model (apart from some overfit); local dependence between two items (absorbed by creating a testlet); and essential unidimensionality. At scale co-calibration onto a common interval-scaled metric, PMQ 2.0 was better targeted than LCI-5 (i.e. the extent of item difficulty was more appropriate for the sample) and its operational range allowed a more precise measurement of higher locomotor abilities. The correlation between LCI-5 and PMQ 2.0 scores was rho = 0.78. In conclusion, LCI-5 revealed some drawbacks, confirming a previous Rasch study; refinement of its rating scale and item selection seems therefore warranted. The PMQ 2.0 demonstrated good overall measurement quality, in line with previous Italian and Slovene studies. The operational range of the PMQ 2.0 makes it more suitable than LCI-5 for assessing people with high locomotor abilities. Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.