Current assessments do not capture the dynamic and complex process of managing different individual and environmental factors influencing community participation post-stroke.
Purpose.
The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Community Participation Activation Scale (CPAS) in persons with stroke.
Method.
Rating scale structure, unidimensionality, reliability and precision, construct validity, and differential item functioning of the CPAS were examined with 93 community-dwelling people with stroke.
Findings.
The CPAS consists of 15 action items and 10 attitude items. Person separation reliabilities of the action and attitude domains were .75 and .72, respectively, and internal consistency reliabilities were good (>.80). The CPAS showed low to moderate correlation with community integration and enfranchisement constructs.
Implications.
The CPAS may be used as an assessment to better understand an individual’s level of activation and to inform individually designed, participation-focused interventions, although it needs further improvement to be used as a clinical measure.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2014). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
2.
AndersonS.WhitfieldK. (2011). An ecological approach to activity after stroke: It takes a community. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 18, 509–524. doi:10.1310/tsr1805-509
3.
AndersonS.WhitfieldK. (2013). Social identity and stroke: “They don’t make me feel like, there’s something wrong with me.”Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27, 820–830. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01086.x
4.
BluvolA.Ford-GilboeM. (2004). Hope, health work and quality of life in families of stroke survivors. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 322–332. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03004.x
5.
BradyM. C.ClarkA. M.DicksonS.PatonG.BarbourR. S. (2011). The impact of stroke-related dysarthria on social participation and implications for rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 178–186. doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.517897
6.
ChangF.-H.CosterW. J.HelfrichC. A. (2013). Community participation measures for people with disabilities: A systematic review of content from an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health perspective. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94, 771–781. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.10.031
7.
ChauJ. P. C.ThompsonD. R.TwinnS.ChangA. M.WooJ. (2009). Determinants of participation restriction among community dwelling stroke survivors: A path analysis. BMC Neurology, 9, Article 49. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-9-49
DesrosiersJ.NoreauL.RochetteA.BourbonnaisD.BravoG.BourgetA. (2006). Predictors of long-term participation after stroke. Disability & Rehabilitation, 28, 221–230. doi:10.1080/09638280500158372
10.
FendrichM.SmithE. V.PollackL. M.Mackesy-AmitiM. E. (2008). Measuring sexual risk for HIV: A Rasch scaling approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 922–935. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9385-2
11.
HäggströmA.LundM. L. (2008). The complexity of participation in daily life: A qualitative study of the experiences of persons with acquired brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 89–95. doi:10.2340/16501977-0138
12.
HammelJ.JonesR.GossettA.MorganE. (2006). Examining barriers and supports to community living and participation after a stroke from a participatory action research approach. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 13(3), 43–58. doi:10.1310/5X2G-V1Y1-TBK7-Q27E
13.
HammelJ.MagasiS.HeinemannA.WhiteneckG.BognerJ.RodriguezE. (2008). What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 1445–1460. doi:10.1080/09638280701625534
14.
HammelJ.MagasiS.HeinemannA.GrayD. B.StarkS.KisalaP.…HahnE. A. (2015). Environmental barriers and supports to everyday participation: A qualitative insider perspective from people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96, 578–588. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.12.008
15.
HeinemannA. W. (2010). Measurement of participation in rehabilitation research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(9), S1–S4. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.155
16.
HeinemannA. W.MagasiS.BodeR. K.HammelJ.WhiteneckG. G.BognerJ.CorriganJ. D. (2013). Measuring enfranchisement: Importance of and control over participation by people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94, 2157–2165. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.017
17.
HeinemannA. W.MagasiS.HammelJ.CarlozziN. E.GarciaS. F.HahnE. A.…JerousekS. (2015). Environmental factors item development for persons with stroke, traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96, 589–595. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.11.024
18.
HeinemannA. W.TulskyD.DijkersM.BrownM.MagasiS.GordonW.DeMarkH. (2010). Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(9), S72–S76. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.11.031
19.
HemmingssonH.JonssonH. (2005). An occupational perspective on the concept of participation in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Some critical remarks. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 569–576. doi:10.5014/ajot.59.5.569
20.
Hibbard, StockardJ.MahoneyE. R.TuslerM. (2004). Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): Conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Services Research, 39(4p1), 1005–1026.
21.
KesslerD.EganM. (2012). A review of measures to evaluate participation outcomes post-stroke. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75, 403–411. doi:10.4276/030802212X13470263980757
22.
KubinaL.-A.DuboulozC.-J.DavisC. G.KesslerD.EganM. Y. (2013). The process of re-engagement in personally valued activities during the 2 years following stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 236–243. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.691936
LinacreJ. M. (2000). Comparing “partial credit models” (PCM) and “rating scale models” (RSM). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 14, 768.
25.
LinacreJ. M. (2004). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. In SmithE. V.JrSmithR. M. (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 258–278). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
26.
LinacreJ. M. (2010). When to stop removing items and persons in Rasch misfit analysis?Rasch Measurement Transactions, 23, 1241.
LinacreJ. M.TennantA. (2009). More about critical eigenvalue sizes in standardized residual principal components analysis. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 23, 1228.
29.
MallinsonT.HammelJ. (2010). Measurement of participation: Intersecting person, task, and environment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(9), S29–S33. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.04.027
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
PlichtaS. B.KelvinE. (2012). Munro’s statistical methods for health care research (6th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: LWW.
33.
RaicheG. (2005). Critical eigenvalue sizes (variances) in standardized residual principal components analysis. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 19, 1012.
34.
ReeveB. B.HaysR. D.BjornerJ. B.CookK. F.CraneP. K.TeresiJ. A.…CellaD. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5), S22–S31.
35.
SarreS.RedlichC.TinkerA.SadlerE.BhallaA.McKevittC. (2013). A systematic review of qualitative studies on adjusting after stroke: Lessons for the study of resilience. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36, 716–726. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.814724
36.
SchulzE. M. (1990). DIF detection: Rasch versus Mantel-Haenszel. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 4, 107.
37.
SharmaN.TridimasA.FitzsimmonsP. R. (2014). A readability assessment of online stroke information. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 23, 1362–1367. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.11.017
38.
SmithR. M. (2004). Detecting item bias with the Rasch model. In SmithE. V.JrSmithR. M. (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 391–418). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
39.
StarkS. L.EdwardsD. F.HollingsworthH.GrayD. B. (2005). Validation of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index in a population of community-dwelling people with mobility limitations. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 344–345. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.03.020
40.
ThorndikeR. M.Thorndike-ChristT. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
41.
WhiteneckG.DijkersM. P. (2009). Difficult to measure constructs: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(11), S22–S35. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.06.009
42.
WilsonM. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
WilsonM. (2011). Some notes on the term: “Wright map.”Rasch Measurement Transactions, 25, 1331.
44.
WolfeE. W.SmithJ., E. V. (2007). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part I. Instrument development tools. In SmithE. V.JrSmithR.M. (Eds.), Rasch measurement: Advanced and specialized applications (pp. 202–242). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
45.
Wood-DauphineeS. L.OpzoomerM. A.WilliamsJ. I.MarchandB.SpitzerW. O. (1988). Assessment of global function: The Reintegration to Normal Living Index. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 69, 583–590.
46.
WoodmanP.RiaziA.PereiraC.JonesF. (2014). Social participation post stroke: A meta-ethnographic review of the experiences and views of community-dwelling stroke survivors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36, 2031–2043. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.887796
47.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
