Repository hosted by TU Delft Library

Home · Contact · About · Disclaimer ·

Development and validation of the Dutch version of the London Handicap Scale

Publication files not online:

Author: Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.M. · Chorus, A.M.J. · Verrips, G.H.W. · Detmar, S.B.
Source:Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 2, 28, 401-408
Identifier: 524742
doi: doi:10.3233/BMR-140534
Keywords: Health · construct-related validity · Dutch · London handicap scale · Quality of life · Adolescent · Adult · Aged · Chronic disease · Chronic obstructive lung disease · Chronic patient · Comorbidity · Disability · Disease assessment · Epilepsy · Family relation · Feasibility study · Female · Human · Integration · Laryngectomy · London handicap scale · Major clinical study · Male · Multiple sclerosis · Patient autonomy · Rheumatoid arthritis · Self report · Social interaction · Validation study · Work capacity · Healthy for Life · Healthy Living · Life · LS - Life Style · ELSS - Earth, Life and Social Sciences


BACKGROUND: The London Handicap Scale (LHS) was found to be a valid and reliable scale for measuring participation restrictions in adults. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the development and assesses the construct-related validity of a Dutch version of the London Handicap Scale (DLHS). METHODS: The DLHS was tested in 798 adults (mean age: 50.7 years, SD=14.5, range 16 to 85) and validated with the 'Impact on Participation and Autonomy' (IPA) questionnaire, the Dutch version of the EQ-5D and questions concerning comorbidity and use of medical devices. The study population consisted of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), epilepsy, laryngectomy and multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: Feasibility was satisfactory. Large correlations (ρ > 0.6) for the DLHS sum score were found with the IPA subscales 'autonomy outdoors', 'perceiving problems', 'family role', autonomy indoors', 'work and education' and with the EQ-5D. The DLHS sum score differs significantly between subgroups based on the number of chronic diseases, number of medical devices and self-reported burden of disease or handicap (p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this evaluation the questionnaire seems feasible and valid for assessing differences in level of participation between subgroups of chronically ill or disabled persons in the Netherlands.