Scientific/Clinical Article| Volume 30, ISSUE 4, P468-476, October 2017

Download started.


Timed activity performance in persons with upper limb amputation: A preliminary study


      Study Design

      55 subjects with upper limb amputation were administered the T-MAP twice within one week.


      To develop a timed measure of activity performance for persons with upper limb amputation (T-MAP); examine the measure's internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity; and compare scores by prosthesis use.


      Measures of activity performance for persons with upper limb amputation are needed The time required to perform daily activities is a meaningful metric that implication for participation in life roles.


      Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated. Construct validity was examined by comparing scores by amputation level. Exploratory analyses compared sub-group scores, and examined correlations with other measures.


      Scale alpha was 0.77, ICC was 0.93. Timed scores differed by amputation level. Subjects using a prosthesis took longer to perform all tasks. T-MAP was not correlated with other measures of dexterity or activity, but was correlated with pain for non-prosthesis users.


      The timed scale had adequate internal consistency and excellent test-retest reliability.


      Analyses support reliability and construct validity of the T-MAP.

      Level of Evidence

      2c “outcomes” research.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Hand Therapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Management of Upper Extremity Amputation Rehabilitation Working Group
        VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for the management of upper extremity amputation rehabilitation.
        Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Washington, DC2014
        • Davids J.R.
        • Wagner L.V.
        • Meyer L.C.
        • Blackhurst D.W.
        Prosthetic management of children with unilateral congenital below-elbow deficiency.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88: 1294-1300
        • Dillingham T.
        Rehabilitation of the upper limb amputee.
        in: Textbook of Military Medicine, Part IV. Surgical Combat Casualty Care: Rehabilitation of the Injured Combatant. Office of The Surgeon General at TMM Publications, Washington, DC1998: 33-77
        • Atkins D.
        Prosthetic training.
        in: Smith D.G. Michael J.W. Atlas of Amputations and Limb Deficiencies: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, Illinois2004: 27-284
        • Smurr L.M.
        • Gulick K.
        • Yancosek K.
        • Ganz O.
        Managing the upper extremity amputee: a protocol for success.
        J Hand Ther. 2008; 21 (quiz 176): 160-175
        • Johnson S.S.
        • Mansfield E.
        Prosthetic training: upper limb.
        Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014; 25: 133-151
        • Carey S.L.
        • Lura D.J.
        • Highsmith M.J.
        Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015; 52: 247-262
        • Hill W.
        • Kyberd P.
        • Hermansson L.N.
        • et al.
        Upper Limb Prosthetic Outcome Measures (UPLOM): a working group and their findings.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2009; 21: P69-P82
        • Resnik L.
        • Adams L.
        • Borgia M.
        • et al.
        Development and evaluation of the activities measure for upper limb amputees.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 488-494.e4
        • Resniik L.
        • Borgia M.
        • Silver B.
        • Cancio J.
        Systematic review of measures of impairment and activity limitation for persons with upper limb trauma and amputation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98 (1863–1892.e14)
        • Whiting S.
        • Lincoln N.
        An ADL assessment for stroke patients.
        Br J Occup Ther. 1980; 43: 44-46
        • Resnik L.
        • Borgia M.
        Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error.
        Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 555-565
        • Heinemann A.W.
        • Bode R.K.
        • O'Reilly C.
        Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003; 27: 191-206
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Katz J.N.
        Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 1038-1046
        • Wong D.L.
        • Baker C.M.
        Smiling faces as anchor for pain intensity scales.
        Pain. 2001; 89: 295-300
        • Shrout P.E.
        • Fleiss J.L.
        Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
        Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 420-428
        • Resnik L.
        • Borgia M.
        Reliability and validity of outcome measures for upper limb amputation.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2012; 24: 192-201
        • James M.A.
        • Bagley A.M.
        • Brasington K.
        • Lutz C.
        • McConnell S.
        • Molitor F.
        Impact of prostheses on function and quality of life for children with unilateral congenital below-the-elbow deficiency.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88: 2356-2365
        • Ritchie S.
        • Wiggins S.
        • Sanford A.
        Perceptions of cosmesis and function in adults with upper limb prostheses: a systematic literature review.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011; 35: 332-341
        • Datta D.
        • Selvarajah K.
        • Davey N.
        Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency—acquired and congenital.
        Clin Rehabil. 2004; 18: 172-177
        • Bouwsema H.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        • Bongers R.M.
        Movement characteristics of upper extremity prostheses during basic goal-directed tasks.
        Clin Biomech. 2010; 25: 523-529

      JHT Read for Credit

      Quiz: #507

      Record your answers on the Return Answer Form found on the tear-out coupon at the back of this issue or to complete online and use a credit card, go to There is only one best answer for each question.
      • #1.
        The subjects were scored on
        • a.
          time of performance
        • b.
          independence and time of performance
        • c.
          time and quality of performance
        • d.
          a self-report instrument
      • #2.
        How many patients were included in the investigation
        • a.
        • b.
        • c.
        • d.
      • #3.
        The T-MAP demonstrated
        • a.
          construct validity
        • b.
        • c.
          both a and b (above)
        • d.
          neither a nor b (above)
      • #4.
        The T-MAP used 5 items adapted from the
        • a.
        • b.
        • c.
          Mayo Clinic Prosthetic outcome measure
        • d.
          JTHF test
      • #5.
        Timed scores differed by the level of amputation
        • a.
        • b.
      When submitting to the HTCC for re-certification, please batch your JHT RFC certificates in groups of 3 or more to get full credit.