Measuring community integration after spinal cord injury: validation of the Sydney psychosocial reintegration scale and community integration measure
- 374 Downloads
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).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsSydney psychosocial reintegration scale—SPRS Community integration measure—CIM Outcomes measurement Community integration Participation
American Spinal Injury Association
Community Integration Measure
Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique
- MOS SF-36
Medical outcomes study short-form health questionnaire
Spinal cord injury
Health Utility Scale
Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale
Traumatic Brain Injury
- 7.World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 23.Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- 26.Ley, P. (1972). Quantitative aspects of psychological assessment. London: Gerald Duckworth.Google Scholar
- 27.Dijkers, M. (1991). Scoring CHART: Survey and sensitivity analysis. The Journal of the American Paraplegia Society, 14, 85–86.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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