Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

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

Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire

  • Jessica FishEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1944

Synonyms

IPA

Definition

The IPA was developed by Cardol et al. (1999). It is a 39-item (or 41-item in the revised version) self-report measure encompassing the areas of mobility, self-care, household tasks and family roles, spending money, leisure, social relations, paid and voluntary work, education, and learning. Each has a set of questions associated with participation in that area, rated on a five-point scale, and a final question regarding the effect of disability on participation in that domain, rated on a three-point scale. Scores are derived for five domains, autonomy indoors, autonomy outdoors, family role, social relationships, and work/education.

Current Knowledge

The original version of the IPA was developed in the Netherlands, but it has since been translated into English, Danish, Finnish, French, German, Swedish, and Thai. It has been used in several patient groups, including spinal cord injury (SCI, Cardol et al. 2001), Parkinson’s disease (Franchignoni et al. 2007),...

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

References and Readings

  1. Cardol, M., de Haan, R. J., van den Bos, G. A., de Jong, B. A., & de Groot, I. J. (1999). The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: The impact on participation and autonomy (IPA). Clinical Rehabilitation, 13, 411–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cardol, M., de Haan, R. J., de Jong, B. A., van den Bos, G. A., & de Groot, I. J. (2001). Psychometric properties of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 210–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardol, M., Beelen, A., van den Bos, G. A., de Jong, B. A., de Groot, I. J., & de Haan, R. J. (2002). Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1524–1529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Franchignoni, F., Ferriero, G., Giordano, A., Guglielmi, V., & Picco, D. (2007). Rasch psychometric validation of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire in people with Parkinson’s disease. Europa Medicophysica, 43, 451–461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ghaziani, E., Krogh, A. G., & Lund, H. (2013). Developing a Danish version of the “impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire”. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20, 190–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Karhula, M. E., Salminen, A. L., Hamalainen, P. I., Ruutiainen, J., Era, P., & Tolvanen, A. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Finnish version of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire in persons with multiple sclerosis. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 3, 1–11.Google Scholar
  7. Kersten, P., Cardol, M., George, S., Ward, C., Sibley, A., & White, B. (2007). Validity of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: A comparison between two countries. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 1502–1509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lund, M. L., Fisher, A. G., Lexell, J., & Bernspång, B. (2007). Impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: Scale validity of the Swedish version for use in people with spinal cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 156–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Poulin, V., & Desrosiers, J. (2010). Validation of the French translation of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire (IPAQ). Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sibley, A., Kersten, P., Ward, C. D., White, B., Mehta, R., & George, S. (2006). Measuring autonomy in disabled people: Validation of a new scale in a UK population. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20, 793–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Suttiwong, J., Vongsirinavarat, M., Vachalathiti, R., & Chaiyawat, P. (2013). Impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the thai version. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 25, 769–774.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Van de Port, I. G. L., van den Bos, G. A. M., Voorendt, M., Kwakkel, G., & Lindeman, E. (2007). Identification of risk factors related to perceived unmet demands in patients with chronic stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 1841–1846.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences UnitCambridgeUK