Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Participation Objective, Participation Subjective

  • Margaret BrownEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1826

Synonyms

POPS

Description

The participation objective, participation subjective (POPS) is a 26-item instrument, with two scoring systems, reflecting different perspectives – one, on disability, insider’s perspective of their participation in home and community activities, and the other, reflecting societal/normative (“outsider”) valuations. The POPS measure differs from typical community integration (CI) instruments in several ways: (1) It focuses solely on activities, not on nonactivity indicators related to community functioning, for example, income. (2) It generates two measures: the PO, comprising an objective measure of participation, and the PS, a subjective measure. (3) The PO gauges level of engagement, that is, frequency or duration of participation in activity in real-life environments. This differs from some CI measures in that the focus is not placed on the degree of impaired functioning. (4) Subjective assessment (the PS measure) incorporates the preferences of the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Bigelow, D. A., Gareau, M. J., & Young, D. J. (1990). A quality of life interview. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 14(2), 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigelow, D. A., McFarland, B. H., & Olson, M. M. (1991). Quality of life of community mental health program clients: Validating a measure. Community Mental Health Journal, 27(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, M., Dijkers, M. P. J. M., Gordon, W. A., Ashman, T., Charatz, H., & Cheng, Z. (2004). Participation objective, participation subjective: A measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 19, 459–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burckhardt, C. S., Woods, S. L., Schultz, A. A., & Ziebarth, D. M. (1989). Quality of life of adults with chronic illness: A psychometric study. Research in Nursing & Health, 12(6), 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flanagan, J. C. (1978). A research approach to improving our quality of life. American Psychologist, 33(2), 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flanagan, J. C. (1982). Measurement of quality of life: Current state of the art. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 63(2), 56–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. The POPS is available via the COMBI website: http://www.tbims.org/combi/pops/popssyl.html
  8. Whiteneck, G. G., Charlifue, S. W., Gerhart, K. A., Overholser, J. D., & Richardson, G. N. (1992a). Quantifying handicap: A new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 73(6), 519–526.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Whiteneck, G., Johnston, M., Gordon, W. A., & Lehmkuhl, D. (1992b). Community re-entry questionnaire. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  10. Willer, B., Rosenthal, M., Kreutzer, J. S., Gordon, W. A., & Rempel, R. (1993). Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA