Validation and responsiveness of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument Computerized Adaptive Test in community-dwelling stroke survivors

Roderick Wondergem*, Martijn F. Pisters, Eveline M. Wouters, Rob A. de Bie, Johanna M. Visser-Meily, Cindy Veenhof

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


BACKGROUND: Follow-up of stroke survivors is important to objectify activity limitations and/or participations restrictions. Responsive measurement tools are needed with a low burden for professional and patient.

AIM: To examine the concurrent validity, floor and ceiling effects and responsiveness of both domains of the Late-Life Function and Disability Index Computerized Adaptive Test (LLFDI-CAT) in first-ever stroke survivors discharged to their home setting.

DESIGN: Longitudinal study.

SETTING: Community.

POPULATION: First ever stroke survivors.

METHODS: Participants were visited within three weeks after discharge and six months later. Stroke Impact Scale (SIS 3.0) and Five-Meter Walk Test (5MWT) outcomes were used to investigate concurrent validity of both domains, activity limitations, and participation restriction, of the LLFDI-CAT. Scores at three weeks and six months were used to examine floor and ceiling effects and change scores were used for responsiveness. Responsiveness was assessed using predefined hypotheses. Hypotheses regarding the correlations with change scores of related measures, unrelated measures, and differences between groups were formulated.

RESULTS: The study included 105 participants. Concurrent validity (R) of the LLFDI-CAT activity limitations domain compared with the physical function domain of the SIS 3.0 and with the 5MWT was 0.79 and -0.46 respectively. R of the LLFDI-CAT participation restriction domain compared with the participation domain of the S1S 3.0 and with the 5MWT was 0.79 and -0.41 respectively. A ceiling effect (15%) for the participation restriction domain was found at six months. Both domains, activity limitations and participation restrictions, of the LLFDI-CAT, scored well on responsiveness: 100% (12/12) and 91% ( I 2/11) respectively of the predefined hypotheses were confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS: The LLFDI-CAT seems to be a valid instrument and both domains are able to detect change over time. Therefore, the LLFD-CAT is a promising tool to use both in practice and in research.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The LLFDI-CAT can be used in research and clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)424-432
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2019


  • Stroke
  • Activities of daily living
  • Survivors

Cite this