Measuring community integration after spinal cord injury: validation of the Sydney psychosocial reintegration scale and community integration measure | mijn-bsl Skip to main content

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop

Nieuws
Boeken
Tijdschriften
E-learning
Web-tv
Video
Audio

Tips voor Mijn BSL

UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2010

01-10-2010

Measuring community integration after spinal cord injury: validation of the Sydney psychosocial reintegration scale and community integration measure

Auteurs: Annelies De Wolf, Amanda Lane-Brown, Robyn L. Tate, James Middleton, Ian D. Cameron

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2010

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the reliability, validity, sensitivity to change, and clinical usefulness of the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS) and Community Integration Measure (CIM) for people with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Methods

A sample of 58 people with recent traumatic SCI was followed up at 12 months post-discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. The SPRS, CIM, Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART) and SF-6D Health Utility Scale (SF-6D) were administered.

Results

The SPRS and CIM were internally consistent (α = .80 and .78, respectively). The SPRS showed greatest sensitivity to change as measured by percentage of participants meeting minimum difference in score change over time (21%). CIM and CHART had comparable sensitivity to change (14% minimum difference). SPRS correlated significantly with CHART (r = .72, P < .001), unlike CIM. Neither SPRS nor CIM discriminated between high and low impairment, unlike CHART. Correlations with CHART and SF-6D domains supported convergent and divergent validity of the SPRS domains.

Conclusions

Research should continue to develop conceptually and psychometrically valid instruments to capture the multidimensionality of community integration. The SPRS and CIM show potential to extend measurement of community reintegration following SCI.
vorige artikel The impact of next and back buttons on time to complete and measurement reliability in computer-based surveys
volgende artikel Development of the Healthy Pathways Child-Report Scales
Literatuur
1.
Noreau, L., Fougeyrollas, P., Post, M., & Asano, M. (2005). Participation after spinal cord injury: The evolution of conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 29(3), 147–156. PubMed
2.
Dijkers, M. (1998). Community integration: Conceptual issues and measurement. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 4(1), 1–15. CrossRef
3.
Gray, D. B., & Hendershot, G. E. (2000). The ICIDH-2: Developments for a new era of outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, S10–S14. CrossRefPubMed
4.
Cardol, M., Brandsma, J. W., de Groot, I. J. M., van den Bos, G. A. M., de Haan, R. J., & de Jong, B. A. (1999). Handicap questions: What do they assess? Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(3), 97–105. CrossRefPubMed
5.
Carr, A. J., & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Towards a measure of patient-perceived handicap in rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 378–382. CrossRefPubMed
6.
McColl, M. A., Carlson, P., Johnston, J., Minnes, P., Shue, K., Davies, D., et al. (1998). The definition of community integration: Perspectives of people with brain injuries. Brain Injury, 12(1), 15–30. CrossRefPubMed
7.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
8.
Whiteneck, G. G., Charlifue, S. W., Gerhart, K. A., Drew, O. J., & Richardson, G. N. (1992). Quantifying handicap: A new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73(June), 519–525. PubMed
9.
Mellick, D., Walker, N., Brooks, C., & Gale, W. (1999). Incorporating the cognitive independence domain into CHART. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurements, 3(3), 12–21.
10.
World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicap: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization.
11.
Hall, K. M., Dijkers, M., Whiteneck, G. G., Brooks, C., & Krause, J. S. (1998). The Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART): Metric properties and scoring. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 4(1), 16–30. CrossRef
12.
Tate, R., Hodgkinson, A., Veerabangsa, A., & Maggiotto, S. (1999). Measuring psychosocial recovery after traumatic brain injury: Psychometric properties of a new scale. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 14(6), 543–557. CrossRefPubMed
13.
Tate, R., Pfaff, A., Veerabangsa, A., & Hodgkinson, A. (2004). Measuring psychosocial recovery after brain injury: Change versus competency. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 85(1), 538–545.
14.
McColl, M. A., Davies, D., Carlson, P., Johnston, J., & Minnes, P. (2001). The community integration measure: Development and preliminary validation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 429–434. CrossRefPubMed
15.
De Wolf, A. C., Cameron, I. D., Middleton, J. W., & Quirk, R. (2008). Community integration and participation following spinal cord injury: A 2 year follow-up. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40(suppl 47), 106.
16.
Kuipers, P., Kendall, M., Fleming, J., & Tate, R. (2004). Comparison of the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS) with the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ): Administration and psychometric properties of two outcome measures. Brain Injury, 18(2), 161–177. CrossRefPubMed
17.
Andresen, E. M. (2000). Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(S2), S15–S20. CrossRefPubMed
18.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292. CrossRefPubMed
19.
Walker, N., Mellick, D., Brooks, C., & Whiteneck, G. G. (2003). Measuring participation across impairment groups using the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(12), 936–941. CrossRefPubMed
20.
Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kolinski, M., & Gandeck, B. (1993). SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre.
21.
Lee, B. B., King, M. T., Haran, M. J., Stockler, M. R., Marial, O., & Salkeld, G. (2008). Validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference for the SF-6D Health Utility Scale in a spinal cord injured population. Value Health, 11(4), 680–688. CrossRefPubMed
22.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Staring at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103. CrossRefPubMed
23.
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
24.
Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., & Maggiotto, S. (1998). Stability of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and the determination of reliability of change scores. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12(3), 348–357.
25.
Perdices, M. (2005). How do you know whether your patient is getting better (or worse)? A user’s guide. Brain Impairment, 6(3), 219–226. CrossRef
26.
Ley, P. (1972). Quantitative aspects of psychological assessment. London: Gerald Duckworth.
27.
Dijkers, M. (1991). Scoring CHART: Survey and sensitivity analysis. The Journal of the American Paraplegia Society, 14, 85–86.
28.
Schuck, P., & Zwingmann, C. (2003). The ‘smallest real difference’ as a measure of sensitivity to change: A critical analysis. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 26(2), 85–91. CrossRefPubMed
29.
Betz, N. E. (2000). Test construction. In F. T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research (pp. 239–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
30.
Dijkers, M. (1997). Quality of life after spinal cord injury: A meta analysis of the effects of disablement components. Spinal Cord, 35, 829–840. CrossRefPubMed
31.
Dijkers, M., Whiteneck, G. G., & El-Jaroudi, R. (2000). Measures of social outcomes in disability research . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(Suppl 2).
32.
Iida, H., Tachibana, S., Kitahara, T., Horiike, S., Ohwada, T., & Fujii, K. (1999). Association of head trauma with cervical spine injury, spinal cord injury, or both. Journal of Trauma, 46(3), 450–452. CrossRefPubMed
33.
Roth, E., Davidoff, G., Thomas, P., Doljanac, R., Dijkers, M., Berent, S., et al. (1989). A controlled study of neuropsychological deficits in acute spinal cord injury patients. Paraplegia, 27(6), 480–489. PubMed
34.
Davidoff, G., Thomas, P., Johnson, M., Berent, S., Dijkers, M., & Doljanac, R. (1988). Closed head injury in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: Incidence and risk factors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 69(10), 869–872. PubMed
35.
Whiteneck, G. G., Tate, D., & Charlifue, S. W. (1999). Predicting community reintegration after spinal cord injury from demographic and injury characteristics. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 1485–1491. CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Measuring community integration after spinal cord injury: validation of the Sydney psychosocial reintegration scale and community integration measure
Auteurs
Annelies De Wolf
Amanda Lane-Brown
Robyn L. Tate
James Middleton
Ian D. Cameron
Publicatiedatum
01-10-2010
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9685-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2010

Quality of Life Research 8/2010 Naar de uitgave

Erratum

Erratum to: Gender differences in health-related quality-of-life are partly explained by sociodemographic and socioeconomic variation between adult men and women in the US: evidence from four US nationally representative data sets

BriefCommunication

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 4.0 generic core scales

OriginalPaper

Interference with activities due to pain and fatigue: accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods

OriginalPaper

Invariance test of the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire: do women with breast cancer interpret this measure differently?

Brief Communication

Quality of life of patients with oesophageal cancer in Taiwan: validation and application of the Taiwan Chinese (Mandarin) version of the EORTC QLQ-OES18: a brief communication

OriginalPaper

PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation