You are not logged in. Press here to login.

Content

List volumes - List articles in this issue

Reliability and validity of the telephone administration of the wheelchair outcome measure (WhOM) for middle-aged and older users of power mobility devices

doi: 10.2340/16501977-0557

Open access

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To examine the measurement properties of the tele­phone administration of the Wheelchair Outcome Measure (WhOM).
SUBJECTS: Power mobility device users aged 50–89 years.
METHODS: Two independent cohorts were recruited: (i) a prospective cohort (n = 40) to estimate test-retest reliability and to determine the applicability of the telephone format, and (ii) a cross-sectional cohort to examine construct validity with 3 groups: (a) people waiting for a first power mobility device (n = 44); (b) initial users (n = 35; 1–6 months); and (c) long-term users (n = 39; 12–18 months).
RESULTS: The tool demonstrated good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.77–1.00), took 10.9 min (standard deviation = 5.2) to administer and was practical to use over the telephone. Validity testing showed moderate correlations with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Technology (rS = 0.36–0.45) and the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (rS = 0.31–0.43). WhOM scores could discriminate non-users from users (wait-list vs initial users; wait-list vs long-term users, p < 0.001) and power wheelchair from scooter users (total WhOM scores, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The WhOM is a stable, valid and applicable measure for telephone administration with older power mobility device users. It is moderately linked to satisfaction with the device and to the psychosocial impact of the device, and therefore complements rather than replaces those measures.

Authors:

Claudine Auger, Louise Demers, Isabelle Gélinas, François Routhier, W. Ben Mortenson, William C. Miller

References

  1. Roy CW. Common criteria for providing powered wheelchairs should be agreed by wheelchair service centres. BMJ 1997; 315: 605–606.
  2. Jörg F, Boeije HR, Schrijvers AJP. Professionals assessing clients’ needs and eligibility for electric scooters in the Netherlands: both gatekeepers and client’s advocates. Br J Soc Work 2005; 35: 823–842.
  3. Agence d’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en santé (AETMIS). Triporteurs et quadriporteurs: solutions de rechange aux fauteuils roulants à propulsion motorisée? Montréal: AETMIS; 2007. Report No.: AETMIS 07–05.
  4. Dicianno BE, Tovey E. Power mobility device provision: understanding Medicare guidelines and advocating for clients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 807–816.
  5. Kaye H, Kang T, LaPlante M. Mobility device use in the United States. Disability Statistics Report, (14). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; 2000.
  6. Vignier N, Ravaud JF, Winance M, Lepoutre FX, Ville I. Demographics of wheelchair users in France: results of national community-based handicaps-incapacites-dependance surveys. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40: 231–239.
  7. Clarke P, Colantonio A. Wheelchair use among community-dwelling older adults: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Can J Aging 2005; 24: 191–198.
  8. Auger C, Demers L, Gelinas I, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, DeRuyter F. Powered mobility for middle-aged and older adults: systematic review of outcomes and appraisal of published evidence. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87: 666–680.
  9. Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Auger C. Issues for the selection of wheelchair-specific activity and participation outcome measures: a review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1177–1186.
  10. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: short version. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
  11. Rochette A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levasseur M. ‘Optimal’ participation: a reflective look. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 1231–1235.
  12. Noreau L, Fougeyrollas P, Post M, Asano M. Participation after spinal cord injury: the evolution of conceptualization and measurement. J Neurol Phys Ther 2005; 29: 147–156.
  13. Mountain AD, Kirby RL, Smith C. The wheelchair skills test, version 2.4: Validity of an algorithm-based questionnaire version. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 416–423.
  14. Mills T, Holm MB, Trefler E, Schmeler M, Fitzgerald S, Boninger M. Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 38–46.
  15. Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA. Participation survey/mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 189–197.
  16. Mortenson B, Miller W, Miller Polgar J. Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: development of the Wheelchair Outcome Measure. Dis Rehabil Assist Technol 2007; 2: 265–285.
  17. Garden J, Miller W, Mortenson B. A client-specific outcome measure of wheelchair intervention. Can J Occup Ther suppl 2006; 73: 59.
  18. Holbrook A, Green M, Krosnick J. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opin Q 2003; 67: 79–125.
  19. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
  20. 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.
  21. Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark S, Morgan KA. A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30: 434–457.
  22. Gitlin LN. From hospital to home: individual variations in experience with assistive devices among older adults. In: Gray D, Quatrano L, Lieberman M, editors. Designing and using assistive technology: the human perspective. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 1998, p. 117–136.
  23. Brandt A, Iwarsson S, Stahle A. Older people’s use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med 2004; 36: 70–77.
  24. 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.
  25. Vallerand R. Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: implications pour la recherche en langue française. Can Psychol 1989; 30: 662–680.
  26. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold D, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 21–30.
  27. Jutai J, Day H, Coulson S, Demers L, Fuhrer M, Lenker JA, et al. Developing a short form of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Rehabilitation Engineering and assistive technology Society of North America RESNA 2007 Annual conference. Phoenix, Arizona; 2007.
  28. Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 31–37.
  29. 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, p. 15–36.
  30. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: S15–S20.
  31. Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.
  32. Tabachnik B, Fidel L. Using multivariate statistics. 5th edn. Boston: Pearson Education; 2007.
  33. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
  34. Buning ME, Angelo JA, Schmeler MR. Occupational performance and the transition to powered mobility: a pilot study. Am J Occup Ther 2001; 55: 339–344.
  35. Cook A, Polgar J. Cook and Hussey’s assistive technologies: principles and practice. 3rd edn. St Louis: Mosby; 2008.
  36. Scherer MJ, editor. The Matching person & Technology. (MPT) ModelManuel. Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology Rochester, NY; 1991.
  37. Harris F. Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility device users. Dis Rehabil Assist Technol 2007; 2: 137–148.
  38. Hoenig H, Pieper C, Branch LG, Cohen HJ. Effect of motorized scooters on physical performance and mobility: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 279–286.
  39. Pettersson I, Tornquist K, Ahlstrom G. The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Dis Rehabil Assist Technol 2006; 1: 235–243.


Related articles

There are no related articles.


Actions


Abstract

Full text

PDF

Supplementary


There is no supplementary for this article.

Related articles


Click here to show related articles

Print information


Volume 42, Issue 6

DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0557

Pages: 574-581

View at PubMed