ArticlesResponsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire☆,☆☆,★
Section snippets
Study population
Consecutive persons who were referred for treatment to the outpatient clinic of the rehabilitation department of an academic hospital were included. Treatment was based on a multidisciplinary approach; in addition to a rehabilitation physician, the following disciplines could be involved: physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and social work. Excluded were persons with insufficient command of the Dutch language and persons younger than 18 years of age.
Methods
Respondents were invited
Results
Fifty-seven persons were enrolled in the study. Of those, 8 were lost to follow-up: 4 developed health problems after the first measurement, 1 person moved abroad, 2 withdrew because they were emotionally overburdened, and 1 withdrew because the treatment had mainly consisted of evaluation. This attribution resulted in 49 participants in the follow-up assessment (36 women, 13 men; mean age ± SD, 50.0±14.6y). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics in terms of age,
Discussion
When evaluating rehabilitation interventions, responsiveness is a crucial property of an outcome measurement instrument.26 The results of the present study show that the IPA detects within-person improvement over time. With regard to the participation domains, autonomy indoors and social relations were less responsive than the other domains, whereas the general responsiveness of the items on the experience of problems was moderate. Surprisingly, mobility, the most concrete item, was the most
Conclusion
The scores on the IPA items addressing the experience of problems may be the optimum outcome measure for change because they reflect the patient's opinion of the relevant issues and desired effects of treatment. More research is needed on the IPA items that address the patient's experience of problems because in the present study these items appeared to be somewhat less sensitive to change than the IPA's participation domains.
References (36)
- et al.
Psychometric properties of the questionnaire Impact on Participation and Autonomy
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(2001) - et al.
A methodological framework for assessing health indices
J Chronic Dis
(1985) - et al.
Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments
J Chronic Dis
(1987) - et al.
Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance
J Chronic Dis
(1986) - et al.
Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification
J Clin Epidemiol
(1989) - et al.
Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders
J Clin Epidemiol
(1997) - et al.
Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment
J Chronic Dis
(1986) - et al.
The evaluation of changes in functional health status in patients with abdominal complaints
J Clin Epidemiol
(1996) - et al.
Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis
J Clin Epidemiol
(1995) - et al.
A comparison of different indices of responsiveness
J Clin Epidemiol
(1997)
Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach
J Clin Epidemiol
Should study subjects see their previous responses?
J Chronic Dis
Quality of life: a dynamic construct
Soc Sci Med
Integrating response shift into health related quality of life research: a theoretical model
Soc Sci Med
ICIDH-2: International classification of functioning and disability. Beta-2 draft, full version
Handicap questionnaires: what do they assess?
Disabil Rehabil
The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA)
Clin Rehabil
Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures
Control Clin Trials
Cited by (85)
Occupation-focused intervention for in-patient mental health settings: Pilot study of effectiveness
2020, Journal of Psychiatric ResearchCitation Excerpt :One item from the autonomy indoors subscale was dropped because of low relevance to the population. Psychometrics for the IPA indicate good reliability, internal validity, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminatory validity (Cardol et al., 2001) and confirm the validity of the IPA for use with persons with mental illnesses (Cardol et al., 2002). Intention for participation (IP) is an investigator developed, self-report measure using visual analog scale (VAS) to estimate the level of intention to participate in activities with personal meaning.
Self-Perceived Participation and Autonomy at 1-Year Post Stroke: A Part of the Stroke Arm Longitudinal Study at the University of Gothenburg (SALGOT Study)
2018, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular DiseasesCitation Excerpt :The IPA-E also provides the possibility to evaluate a person's perceived problems with participation, using 5 domains covering different aspects of participation and autonomy: (1) Autonomy indoors (7 items), (2) Family role (7 items), (3) Autonomy outdoors (5 items), (4) Social relations (7 items), and (5) Work and education (6 items). Additional information about the questionnaires can be found elsewhere.11-13,23 For the present study, the English version of IPA (IPA-E) was used,23 which includes the additional question: “My chances of helping or supporting people in any way are…” with a 5-point rating scale, ranging from very good (0 points) to very poor (4 points) (which is the same rating for all questions).
Participation and autonomy in the first 10 months after diagnosis of ALS: a longitudinal study
2021, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration
- ☆
Supported in part by the Albert Heijn Trust Fund.
- ☆☆
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.
- ★
Correspondence to Mieke Cardol, OT, PhD, Nivel Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, The Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected]. Reprints are not available.