Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 1185–1193 | Cite as

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

  • Annelies De WolfEmail author
  • Amanda Lane-Brown
  • Robyn L. Tate
  • James Middleton
  • Ian D. Cameron
Article

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.

Keywords

Sydney psychosocial reintegration scale—SPRS Community integration measure—CIM Outcomes measurement Community integration Participation 

Abbreviations

ASIA

American Spinal Injury Association

CIM

Community Integration Measure

CHART

Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique

ES

Effect size

MD

Minimum difference

MOS SF-36

Medical outcomes study short-form health questionnaire

SCI

Spinal cord injury

SF-6D

Health Utility Scale

SPRS

Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale

TBI

Traumatic Brain Injury

References

  1. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkers, M. (1998). Community integration: Conceptual issues and measurement. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 4(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andresen, E. M. (2000). Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(S2), S15–S20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Streiner, D. L. (2003). Staring at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ley, P. (1972). Quantitative aspects of psychological assessment. London: Gerald Duckworth.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dijkers, M. (1991). Scoring CHART: Survey and sensitivity analysis. The Journal of the American Paraplegia Society, 14, 85–86.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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).Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annelies De Wolf
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amanda Lane-Brown
    • 1
  • Robyn L. Tate
    • 1
  • James Middleton
    • 1
  • Ian D. Cameron
    • 1
  1. 1.Rehabilitation Studies UnitUniversity of Sydney and Royal Rehabilitation Centre SydneyRydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations