You are not logged in. Press here to login.

Content

List volumes - List articles in this issue

Original report

Responsiveness of four participation measures to changes during and after outpatient rehabilitation

doi: 10.2340/16501977-0879

Open access

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To assess the responsiveness of 4 participation measures.
DESIGN: Longitudinal study with repeated measurements at the start (t1) and at the end (t2) of a multidisciplinary out­patient rehabilitation programme, and at 4 months follow-up (t3).
SUBJECTS: Outpatients with different diagnoses (n=395) from 5 rehabilitation centres in The Netherlands.
METHODS: Measures were the Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), the Participation subscale of the ICF Measure of Participation and Activities Screener (IMPACT-SP), the Participation Scale, and the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (USER-Participation). Responsiveness was analysed using the effect size and the standardized response mean.
RESULTS: Comparing scores at t1 and t2, the standardized response mean was 0.54 for the USER-Participation Restriction scale, 0.41 for the FAI, 0.40 for the IMPACT-SP, 0.39 for the USER-Participation Satisfaction scale, –0.36 for the Participation Scale, and 0.21 for the USER-Participation Frequency scale. Effect size values were generally somewhat smaller than standardized response mean values. Effect size and standardized response mean values were negligible between t2 and t3. Responsiveness parameters varied between diagnostic groups, with participants with acquired brain injury showing the largest change and participants with neuro­muscular disease or chronic pain showing least change.
CONCLUSION: Overall and across the different diagnostic groups, the USER-Participation Restriction scale showed the best responsiveness.

Authors:

Carlijn H. van der Zee, Albert Kap, Radha Rambaran Mishre, Evert J. Schouten, Marcel W.M. Post

References

  1. Wade DT, de Jong BA. Recent advances in rehabilitation. BMJ 2000; 320: 1385–1388.
  2. Cohen ME, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 Suppl 2: S21–S29.
  3. Heinemann AW. Putting outcome measurement in context: a rehabilitation psychology perspective. Rehabil Psychol 2005; 50: 6–14.
  4. Dijkers MPJM, Whiteneck G, El-Jaroudi R. Measures of social outcomes in disability research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 Suppl 2: S63–S80.
  5. Magasi S, Post MW. A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 Suppl 1: S17–S28.
  6. Wade DT. Outcome measures for clinical rehabilitation trials: impairment, function, quality of life, or value? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82 Suppl 10: S26–S31.
  7. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO: Geneva: 2001.
  8. Whiteneck G, Dijkers MP. Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: S22–S35.
  9. Badley EM. Enhancing the conceptual clarity of the activity and participation components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in clinical settings. Soc Sci Med 2007; 44:113–122.
  10. Post MWM, De Witte LP, Reichrath E, Verdonschot MM, Wijlhuizen GJ, Perenboom RJM. Development and validation of IMPACT-S, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40: 620–627.
  11. 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: 735–745.
  12. 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: 459–481.
  13. Rochette A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levasseur M. ‘Optimal’ participation: a reflective look. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 1231–1235.
  14. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1033–1039.
  15. Van der Zee CH, Post WMW, Kap A, Schouten E, Van Royen R, Rambaran Mishre R, et al. [Measurement of participation as an outcome of outpatient rehabilitation: a prospective multi-centre study.] Revalidata 2008; 146: 10–14 (in Dutch).
  16. Resnik L, Plow MA. Measuring participation as defined by the international classification of functioning, disability and health: an evaluation of existing measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 856–866.
  17. Schepers VP, Ketelaar M, van de Port IG, Visser-Meily JM, Lindeman E. Comparing contents of functional outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 221–230
  18. Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing 1983; 12: 166–170.
  19. Van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Mutatkar RK, Bakirtzief Z, Nicholls PG, Raju MS, et al. The Participation scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 193–203.
  20. 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 (in press).
  21. 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: 752–757.
  22. Post MWM, de Witte LP. Good inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 548–552.
  23. 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: 1035–1040.
  24. 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: 175–183.
  25. Post MWM, van de Port ILG, Kap B, Berdenis van Berlekom S. Development and validation of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of clinical Rehabilitation (USER). Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 909–917.
  26. 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.
  27. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178–S189.
  28. Cohen J, editor. Statistical power analyses for the behavioural sciences (2nd edn). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
  29. Liang MH. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 1191–1192.
  30. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 28: 632–642.
  31. Zou GY. Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1545–1552.
  32. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 524–534.
  33. Ritter P, Lorig K, Laurent D, Matthews K. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res 2004; 6: e29.
  34. Harwood RH, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Handicap one year after a stroke; validity of a new scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994: 57; 825–829.
  35. Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1997; 42: 236–244.
  36. 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: 411–419.
  37. 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: 1524–1529.
  38. Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Jette AM, Ware JE. Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the Participation Measure for Post-Acute Care (PM-PAC). Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 86: 57–71.
  39. Haley SM, Siebens H, Coster WJ, Tao W, Blach-Schaffer RM, Gandek B, et al. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: I. Activity Outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 1033–1042.
  40. Haley SM, Gandek B, Siebens H, Blach-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: 275–283.


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 43, Issue 11

DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0879

Pages: 1003-1009

View at PubMed