Development of a French-Canadian version of the Life-Space Assessment LSA-F: Content validity, reliability and applicability for power mobility device users

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 31-41

  Auger, Claudine ^a,b   Demers, Louise ^a,b   Glinas, Isabelle ^c,d   Routhier, Franois ^a,b,e,f   Jutai, Jeffrey ^g   Gurette, Chantal ^e   Deruyter, Frank ^h  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b CENTRE DE RECHERCHE   (Canada)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d CENTRE FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN REHABILITATION OF GREATER MONTREAL   (Canada)

^e Mobility Aids and Positioning Program   (Canada)

^f DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^h DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Aged; Disabled personsrehabilitation; Middle aged; Mobility; Reproducibility of results; Self help devices; Translating; Validation studies; Wheelchairs

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF HELP;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CANADA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF-HELP DEVICES; TRANSLATING;

EID: 65249118282     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17483100802543064     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Iezzoni LI, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Siebens H. Mobility difficulties are not only a problem of old age. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:235-243.
2. Kaye H, Kang T, LaPlante M. Mobility Device use in the United States. Disability Statistics Report, (14). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; 2000.
3. Mollenkopf H, Marcellini F, Ruoppila I, Flaschentrager P, Gagliardi C, Spazzafumo L. Outdoor mobility and social relationships of elderly people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 1997;24:295-310.
4. Meyers AR, Anderson JJ, Miller DR, Shipp K, Hoenig H. Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: Substantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:1435-1446.
5. National Aging Information Center. Older persons with mobility and self-care limitations: 1990. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1996. Available at: http: //www.aoa.gov/prof/Statistics/moblimit/ mobility-limit. aspx#NatlTable. Accessed October 10 2008.
6. May D, Nayak US, Isaacs B. The life-space diary: A measure of mobility in old people at home. Int Rehabil Med 1985;7:182-186.
7. Tinetti ME, Ginter SF. The nursing home life-space diameter: A measure of extent and frequency of mobility among nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990;38:1311-1315.
8. Stalvey BT, Owsley C, Sloane ME, Ball K. The Life Space Questionnaire: A measure of the extent of mobility of older adults. J Appl Gerontol 1999;18:460-478.
9. Baker PS, Bodner EV, Allman RM. Measuring life-space mobility in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:1610-1614.
10. Peel C, Sawyer Baker P, Roth DL, Brown CJ, Brodner EV, Allman RM. Assessing mobility in older adults: The UAB Study of Aging Life-Space Assessment. Phys Ther 2005;85:1008-1119.
11. Jensen GL, Roy MA, Buchanan AE, Berg MB. Weight loss intervention for obese older women: Improvements in performance and function. Obes Res 2004;12:1814-1820.
12. Barnes LL, Wilson RS, Bienias JL, De Leon CFM, Kim HJN, Buchman AS, Bennett DA. Correlates of life space in a volunteer cohort of older adults. Exp Aging Res 2007;33:77-93.
13. GooDe PS, Burgio KL, Halli AD, Jones RW, Richter HE, Redden DT, Baker PS, Allman RM. Prevalence and correlates of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:629-635.
14. Allman RM, Baker PS, Maisiak RM, Sims RV, Roseman JM. Racial similarities and differences in predictors of mobility change over eighteen months. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:1118-1126.
15. Auger C, Demers L, Swaine B. Making sense of pragmatic criteria for the selection of geriatric rehabilitation measurement tools. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2006;43:65-83.
16. Meyers AR, Andresen EM. Enabling our instruments: Accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81(S2).
17. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25:3186-3191.
18. Haccoun R. Une nouvelle technique De vérification De l'équivalence De mesures psychologiques traduites. Rev Québ Psychol 1987;8:30-39.
19. Hachey R, Jumoorty J, Mercier C. Methodology for validating the translation of test measurements applied to occupational therapy. Occup Ther Int 1995;2:190-203.
20. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1417-1432.
21. Robichaud-Ekstrand S, Haccoun RR, Millette D. A method for validating a translated questionnaire. Can J Nurs Res 1994;26:77-87.
22. Vallerand R. Vers une méthodologie De validation transculturelle De questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue française. Can Psychol 1989;30:662-680.
23. Gonzalez-Reigosa F. The anxiety-arousing effect of taboo work in bilinguals. In: Diaz-Guerrero CDSaR, editor. Cross-cultural Anxiety. Washington: Hemisphere; 1976. pp 89-105.
24. Vallerand R, Halliwell W. One method of trans-cultural validation of psychological questionnaires: Implications for sports psychology. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1983;8:9-18.
25. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guiDe to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. p 283.
26. Schwartz N, Sudman S, editors. Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass; 1996.
27. Fowler F, Cannell C. Using behavioral coding to identify cognitive problems with survey questions. In: Schwarz N, Sudman S, editors. Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 1996. pp 15- 36.
28. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81(12 Suppl 2):S15-S20.
29. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37-46.
30. Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-428.
31. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
32. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:543-549.
33. SPSS 14.0 for Windows. 14.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.; 2006.
34. Demers L, Monette M, Descent M, Jutai J, Wolfson C. The Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS): Translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Canadian-French version. Qual Life Res 2002;11:583-592.
35. Bravo G, Gaulin P, Dubois M-F. Validation d'une échelle De bien-etre général auprès d'une population francophone agée De 50 à 75 ans. Can J Aging 1996;15:112-128.
36. Farley N, Demers L, Swaine B. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Montgomery Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale into French: Preliminary stages of validation. 33rd Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting of the Canadian Association on Gerontology. Victoria, BC: 2004. p 92.
37. Routhier F, Kirby RL, Demers L, Vincent C, Westwood D. Translation of the Wheelchair Skills Program into French: An iterative methodology. Annual Conference Proceedings [CDROM]. Atlanta, GA: 2005.