Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 1889–1899

The Keele Assessment of Participation: A New Instrument to Measure Participation Restriction in Population Studies. Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Examination of its Psychometric Properties

  • Ross Wilkie
  • George Peat
  • Elaine Thomas
  • Helen Hooper
  • Peter R. Croft
Article

Abstract

The World Health Organization has proposed participation restriction to reflect the societal consequences of health conditions. Despite its importance, participation restriction appears to be inconsistently represented or absent from the content of many health status instruments. This paper describes the development and testing of a new self-complete measure of participation restriction from the conceptual basis of participation as an individual’s perception of their actual involvement in life situations. The psychometric properties (face, content and construct validity, responder burden, performance and repeatability) of the instrument were examined using qualitative and quantitative methods. Person-perceived participation restriction did not reflect the frequency of participation but was associated with participants’ expectations, aspirations, and needs, as well as contextual factors. We conclude that the instrument can provide estimates of person-perceived participation restriction in population surveys.

Keywords:

ICF Instrument Participation restriction Person-perceived Psychometric properties 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bickenbach, JE, Chatterji, S, Badley, EM, Ustun, TB. 1999Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicapsSoc Sci Med4811731187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marks, R. 1999Disability: Controversial Debates and Psychosocial PerspectivesRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebrahim, S. 1997Public health implications of ageingJ Epidemiol Community Health51469471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harwood, RH, Prince, M, Mann, A, Ebrahim, S. 1998Associations between diagnoses, impairments, disability and handicap in a population of elderly peopleInt J Epidemiol27261268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stucki, G, Cieza, A, Ewert, T, Kostanjsek, N, Chatterji, S, Ustun, TB. 2002Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practiceDisabil Rehabil24281282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grimby, G, Smedby, B. 2001ICF approved as the successor of ICIDHJ Rehabil Med33193194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Badley, EM. 1995The genesis of handicap: Definition, models of disablement, and the role of external factorsDisabil Rehabil175362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verbrugge, LM, Jette, A. 1994The disablement processSoc Sci Med38114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harwood, RH, Carr, AJ, Thompson, PW, Ebrahim, S. 1996Handicap in inflammatory arthritisBr J Rheumatol35891897PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harwood, RH, Jitapunkul, S, Dickinson, E, Ebrahim, S. 1994Measuring handicap: Motives, methods, and a modelQual Health Care35357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carr, AJ. 1996A patient-centred approach to evaluation and treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: the development of a clinical tool to measure patient-perceived handicapBr J Rheumatol35921932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ware, JE. 2003Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of Life: Comments on an evolving fieldArch phys Med Rehabil84S43S51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilkie, R, Peat, G, Thomas, E, Croft, PR. 2004Measuring the consequences of osteoarthritis and joint pain in population-based studies. Can existing health measurement instruments capture levels of participation?Arthritis Rheum51755762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fransen, J, Uebelhart, D, Stucki, G, Langenegger, T, Seitz, M, Michel, BA. 2002The ICIDH-2 as a framework for the assessment of functioning and disability in rheumatoid arthritisAnn Rheum Dis61225231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weigl, M, Cieza, A, Harder, M,  et al. 2003Linking osteoarthritis-specific health measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)Osteoathritis Cartilage11519523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO DAS II). URL: http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/ (accessed March 2004)
  18. 18.
    Ueda, S, Okawa, Y. 2003The subjective dimension of functioning and disability: What is it and what is it for?Disabil Rehabil25596601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abramson, JH, Abramson, ZH. 1999Survey Methods in Community Medicine5Epidemiological ResearchProgramme EvaluationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lohr, KN, Aaronson, NK, Alonso, J,  et al. 1996Evaluating quality of life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteriaClin Ther18979992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mallinson, S. 2002Listening to respondents: A qualitative assessment of the Short-Form 36 Health Status QuestionnaireSoc Sci Med541121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landis, JR, Koch, GG. 1977The measurement of observer agreement for categorical dataBiometrics33159174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cardol, M, Haan, RJ, Jong, BA, Bos, GAM, Groot, IJM. 2001Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy questionnaireArch Phys Med Rehabil82210216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wood-Dauphinee, SL, Opzoomer, MA, Williams, JI, Marchand, B, Spitzer, WO. 1988Assessment of global function: The Reintegration to Normal Living IndexArch Phys Med Rehabil69583590PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harwood, RH, Prince, MJ, Mann, AH, Ebrahim, S. 1998The prevalence of diagnoses, impairments, disabilities and handicaps in a population of elderly people living in a defined geographical area: The Gospel Oak projectAge Ageing27707714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoehler, FK. 2000Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificityJ Clin Epidemiol53499503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McDowell, I, Newell, C. 1996Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires2Oxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ross Wilkie
    • 1
  • George Peat
    • 1
  • Elaine Thomas
    • 1
  • Helen Hooper
    • 1
  • Peter R. Croft
    • 1
  1. 1.Primary Care Sciences Research CentreKeele UniversityKeeleUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations