Ravi D WADHWA, Madhusudan DEY, Anupam KAPUR, Vipin KUMAR

Prenatal Ultrasonographic Diagnosis of Proximal Focal Femoral Deficiency

This is a methodological type research that was proceeded to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Scale for the Problematic Mobile Phone Use (PU) among the Turkish society. The related research was conducted within the Spring Semester of 2011-2012 Academic Year on 387 students attending Inonu University Medical Faculty. Besides the scale, a questionnaire for determining the descriptive features of the students was also used in the study. The German original scale was translated into Turkish by using the group translation and retranslation techniques. Content validity index were analyzed for the content validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes were conducted for the construct validity and of the scale, the stability over time and internal consistency for reliability analyzes were conducted. Turkish questionnaire of the scale was reviewed by 10 experts to determine for the content (theme) validity. The necessary corrections were done in accordance with the suggestions of the experts, and the value of the content validity index of the scale (KGİ) was found 0.89. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses performed to test the structure validity of the scale were completed, and a three-factor structure explaining the 45% of the total scale variance was obtained. Cronbach Alpha value calculated for the reliability analyses of the scales was found 0.854, meanwhile the test-retest correlation coefficient of the scale for the total points was found 0.86. Additionally, the difference between the total average points of the pre-test and the re-test of the scale was not found statistically significant (p=0.30). As a result of the Turkish version of the scale of the values obtained from the PU is defined to be a reliable and valid scale.

PDF

___

1. Camera G, Dodero D, Parodi M, Zuchinetti P, Camera A. Antenatal ultrasonographic diagnosis of a proximal femoral focal deficiency. J Clin Ultrasound. 1993;21(7):475-9.

2. Resnick D. Additional Congenital or Heritable Anomalies and Syndromes. In: Resnick D, ed, Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Disorders, 4th edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 2002;4561-631.

3. Makino Y, Inoue T, Shirota K, Kubota S, Kobayashi H, Kawarabayashi T. A case of congenital familial short femur diagnosed prenatally. Fetal Diagn Ther. 1998;13(4):206-8.

4. Sanpera I Jr, Fixsen JA, Sparks LT, Hill RA. Knee in congenital short femur. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1995;4(2):159-63.

5. Gonçalves LF1, De Luca GR, Vitorello DA, Parente LM, Philippi H, Saab Neto JA, Pereira ET. Prenatal diagnosis of bilateral proximal femoral hypoplasia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;8(2):127-30.

6. Armstrong R, McCann E, Fryer A, Bricker L, Platt MJ. A review of prenatally detected femoral abnormalities. Clin Dysmorphol. 2009;18(3):127-30.

7. Bronstein M, Deutsch M. Early diagnosis of proximal femoral deficiency. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1992;34(4):246-8.

8. Aitken GT. Proximal femoral focal deficiency: definition, classification and managemement. In: Aitken GT, ed, Proximal focal deficiency: a congenital anomaly. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1969;1-22.

9. Sabharwal S, Paley D, Bhave A, Herzenberg JE. Growth patterns after lengthening of congenitally short lower limbs in young children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20(2):137-45.

10. Stevens PM, Arms D. Postaxial hypoplasia of the lower extremity. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20(2):166-72.