Articles
Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire,☆☆,

https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.35099Get rights and content

Abstract

Cardol M, Beelen A, van den Bos GA, de Jong BA, de Groot IJ, de Haan RJ. Responsiveness of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1524-9. Objective: To evaluate the responsiveness of a newly developed generic questionnaire, the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA), which focuses on 2 aspects of participation: perceived participation and the experience of problems. Design: Preliminary study of questionnaire responsiveness compared with transition indices. Participants completed 2 assessments, 3 months apart. To measure change, they completed 9 transition indices at the second assessment. One transition index assessed perceived change in general, the other 8 addressed 1 of the specific problem experience items in the IPA. Setting: Outpatient clinic of the rehabilitation department of an academic hospital. Participants: Fifty-seven consecutive persons admitted for multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment, with various diagnoses, were enrolled in the study; 49 persons completed both assessments. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Standardized response mean (SRM) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for participation domain scores and problem scores. Results: SRMs and AUCs for the participation domains ranged from 0.1 to 1.3 and from 50% to 92%, respectively. The SRMs of the items on the experience of problems ranged from 0.4 to 1.5, whereas their AUCs ranged from 56% to 74%. Conclusions: The IPA detected within-person improvement over time, but its responsiveness must be confirmed in a larger study sample. © 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

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)

  • GR Norman et al.

    Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (1997)
  • GH Guyatt et al.

    Should study subjects see their previous responses?

    J Chronic Dis

    (1985)
  • PJ Allison et al.

    Quality of life: a dynamic construct

    Soc Sci Med

    (1997)
  • MA Sprangers et al.

    Integrating response shift into health related quality of life research: a theoretical model

    Soc Sci Med

    (1999)
  • World Health Organization

    ICIDH-2: International classification of functioning and disability. Beta-2 draft, full version

    (1999)
  • M Cardol et al.

    Handicap questionnaires: what do they assess?

    Disabil Rehabil

    (1999)
  • M Cardol et al.

    The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA)

    Clin Rehabil

    (1999)
  • RA Deyo et al.

    Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures

    Control Clin Trials

    (1991)
  • Cited by (85)

    • Occupation-focused intervention for in-patient mental health settings: Pilot study of effectiveness

      2020, Journal of Psychiatric Research
      Citation 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 Diseases
      Citation 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
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    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.

    View full text