Responsiveness of two participation measures in an outpatient rehabilitation setting

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 201-208

  Van Der Zee, Carlijn H ^a   Baars Elsinga, Annette ^b   Visser Meily, Johanna M A ^a   Post, Marcel W M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Longitudinal studies; Outcome assessment; Social participation; Validation studies

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE; ARTICLE; BRAIN INJURY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SATISFACTION; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; BRAIN INJURIES; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASES; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE; BRAIN INJURIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASES; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84877072977     PISSN: 11038128     EISSN: 16512014     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/11038128.2012.754491     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Hemmingsson H, Jonsson H. An occupational perspective on the concept of participation in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Some critical remarks. Am J Occup Ther 2005;59:569-76.
2. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO; 2002.
3. Gray JM. Discussion of the ICIDH-2 in relation to occupational therapy and occupational science. Scand J Occup Ther 2001;8:19-30.
4. Law M. Participation in the occupations of everyday life. Am J Occup Ther 2002;56:640-9.
5. Heinemann AW. Putting outcome measurement in context: A rehabilitation psychology perspective. Rehabil Psychol 2005;50:6-14.
6. Magasi S, Post MW. A comparative review of contemporary participation measures' psychometric properties and content coverage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S17-28.
7. Wade DT. Outcome measures for clinical rehabilitation trials: Impairment, function, quality of life, or value? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82:S26-31.
8. Noonan VK, Kopec JA, Noreau L, Singer J, Dvorak MF. A review of participation instruments based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:1883-901.
9. Dijkers MP. Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: An overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91:S5-16.
10. Post MWM. Measuring the subjective appraisal of participation with life satisfaction measures: Bridging the gap between participation and quality of life measurement. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2010;15:1-15.
11. Brown M, Dijkers MP, Gordon WA, Ashman T, Charatz H, Cheng Z. Participation objective, participation subjective: A measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004;19:459-81.
12. Johnston MV, Goverover Y, Dijkers M. Community activities and individuals' satisfaction with them: Quality of life in the first year after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:735-45.
13. Rochette A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levasseur M. "Optimal" participation: A reflective look. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28: 1231-5.
14. Whiteneck G, Dijkers MP. Difficult to measure constructs: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90:S22-35.
15. Perenboom RJ, Chorus AM. Measuring participation according to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:577-87.
16. Cardol M, De Jong BA, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24: 970-4.
17. Law M, Baptiste S, Mills J. Client-centred practice: What does it mean and does it make a difference? Can J Occup Ther 1995;62:250-7.
18. Cardol M, De Haan RJ, De Jong BA, Van den Bos GAM, De Groot IJM. The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: The Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA). Clin Rehabil 1999;13:411-19.
19. Cardol M, De Haan RJ, De Jong BA, Van den Bos GAM, De Groot IJM. Psychometric properties of the questionnaire Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA). Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:210-16.
20. Poulin V, Desrosiers J. Validation française de questionnaires de participation sociale après d'aînés en situation d'incapacités [French validation of social participation questionnaires by incapacitated elderly people]. Can J Occup Ther 2010;77: 159-66; in French.
21. Vazirinejad R, Lilley JM, Ward CD. The "Impact on Participation and Autonomy": Acceptability of the English version in a multiple sclerosis outpatient setting. Mult Scler 2003;9: 612-5.
22. Kersten P, Cardol M, George S, Ward C, Sibley A, White B. Validity of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: A comparison between two countries. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:1502-9.
23. Lund ML, Fisher AG, Lexell J, Bernspang B. Impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: Internal scale validity of the Swedish version for use in people with spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Med 2007;39:156-62.
24. Fallahpour M, Jonsson H, Joghataei MT, Kottorp A. Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA): Psychometric evaluation of the Persian version to use for persons with stroke. Scand J Occup Ther 2011;18:59-71.
25. Cardol M, Beelen A, Van den Bos GA, De Jong BA, De Groot IJ, De Haan RJ. Responsiveness of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1524-9.
26. Van der Zee CH, Priesterbach AR, Van der Dussen L, Kap A, Schepers VPM, Visser-Meily JMA, et al. Reproducibility of three self-report participation measures: The ICF Measure of Participation and Activities Screener, the Participation Scale, and the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation. J Rehabil Med 2010;42:752-7.
27. Post MWM, Van der Zee CH, Hennink J, Schafrat CGWM, Visser-Meily JMA, Berdenis van Berlekom S. Validity of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation - Participation (USER-Participation). Disabil Rehabil 2012;34:478-85.
28. Van der Zee CH, Kap A, Rambaran Mishre R, Schouten EJ, Post MWM. Responsiveness of four participation measures for outcomes of outpatient rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43:1003-9.
29. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-Mental State": A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-98.
30. Deelman BG, Koning-Haanstra M, Liebrand WBG, Van den Burg W. SAN test (SAN). Amsterdam: Pearson Testpublisher; 1981.
31. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, De Boer MR, Van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.
32. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27:S178-89.
33. Cohen J. Statistical power analyses for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
34. Liang MH. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1191-2.
35. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28:632-42.
36. Zou GY. Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res 2005;14: 1545-52.
37. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-68.
38. Wu C, Chuan L, Lin K, Horng Y. Responsiveness and validity of two outcome measures of instrumental activities of daily living in stroke survivors receiving rehabilitative therapies. Clin Rehabil 2011;25:175-83.
39. Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing 1983;12:166-70.
40. Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1997;42:236-44.
41. Harwood RH, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Handicap one year after a stroke: Validity of a new scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994;57:825-9.
42. Schepers V, Ketelaar M, Visser-Meily A, Dekker J, Lindeman E. Responsiveness of functional health status measures frequently used in stroke research. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28:1035-40.
43. Haley SM, Gandek B, Siebens H, Black-Schaffer RM, Sinclair SJ, Tao W, et al. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, II: Participation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:275-83.
44. Wade DT, De Jong BA. Recent advances in rehabilitation. BMJ 2000;320:1385-8.
45. Cohen ME, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:S21-9.
46. Eyssen IC, Steultjens MP, Oud TA, Bolt EM, Maasdam A, Dekker J. Responsiveness of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. J Rehabil Res Dev 2011;48:517-28.
47. Kiresuk T, Sherman R. Goal Attainment Scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Ment Health J 1964;4:443-53.
48. Reinhardt JD, Post MWM. Measurement and evidence of environmental determinants of participation in spinal cord injury: A systematic review of the literature. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2011;15:26-48.
49. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, et al.et al. Large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:524-34.