Psychometric Validation of the Wisconsin Community Participation Scale in a Sample of People with Chronic Health Conditions and Disabilities Living in the Community

Abstract

Increasing community participation can reduce the risk for functional disabilities; participation is influenced by person and environment contextual factors. Development and validation of a brief community participation assessment can advance and support evidence-based assessment in clinical rehabilitation counseling practice. It will be an invaluable rehabilitation and public health surveillance tool that can be used to gauge the health conditions and participation of people with disabilities. The current study evaluated and validated the Wisconsin Community Participation Scale (WCPS) in 982 individuals with chronic health conditions and disabilities. Participants indicated five most meaningful life roles: (a) being able to get around with or without help, (b) live independently with or without help, (c) live a healthy lifestyle, (d) work, and (e) engage in leisure and recreation activities. The WCPS scores were positively associated with physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction and negatively related to functional disability in the theoretically expected directions. The WCPS can help rehabilitation counselors assess their clients’ current level of participation in meaningful life roles that are important to them. Rehabilitation counselors can use the WCPS assessment data to guide treatment planning and empower clients to build confidence and self-efficacy to participate in personally meaningful activities in the community.

Keywords

community participation chronic health conditions and disabilities functional disability life satisfaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cardol

Jong

B. D.

Ward

C. D.

(2002). On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(18), 970–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280210151996

Chan

Gelman

J. S.

Ditchman

Kim

J. H.

Chiu

C. Y.

(2009). The World Health Organization ICF model as a conceptual framework of disability. In Chan

Da Silva Cardoso

Chronister

J. A.

(Eds.), Understanding psychosocial adjustment to chronic illness and disability: A handbook for evidence-based practitioners in rehabilitation (pp. 23–50). Springer.

Chan

Pfaller

(2016, May). Development of a brief community participation scale [Paper presentation]. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Vocational Rehabilitation, Madison, WI, United States.

Chan

Yaghmaian

Chen

J. R.

Lee

Iwanaga

Tao

(2019). The World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a framework for rehabilitation assessment. In Strauser

D. R.

Tansey

T. N.

Chan

(Eds.), Assessment in rehabilitation and mental health counseling (pp. 15–36). Springer.

Chmielewski

Kucker

(2020). An Mturk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

Cronbach

L. J.

Meehl

P. E.

(1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

Diener

E. D.

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01069-000

Goggin

Ellis

(2020). Disability, communication, and life itself in the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Sociology Review: The Journal of the Health Section of the Australian Sociological Association, 29(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2020.1784020

10.

Heinemann

A. W.

Tulsky

Dijkers

Brown

Magasi

Gordon

DeMark

(2010). Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(9), S72–S76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.11.031

11.

Ipsen

Kuth

Hall

(2020). Evaluating MTurk as a recruitment tool for rural people with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 14, Article 100991.

12.

Litman

Robinson

Abberbock

(2017). TurkPrime. com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z

13.

Luciano

J. V.

Ayuso-Mateos

J. L.

Aguado

Fernandez

Serrano-Blanco

Roca

Haro

J. M.

(2010). The 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II): A nonparametric item response analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-45

14.

Lund

E. M.

Forber-Pratt

A. J.

Wilson

Mona

L. R.

(2020). The COVID-19 pandemic, stress, and trauma in the disability community: A call to action. Rehabilitation Psychology, 65(4), 313–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rep0000368

15.

Mortensen

Hughes

T. L.

(2018). Comparing Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform to conventional data collection methods in the health and medical research literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(4), 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4246-0

16.

Pavot

Diener

(1993). The affective and cognitive context of self-reported measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01086714

17.

Scherer

M. J.

Glueckauf

(2005). Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.50.2.132

18.

Teunissen

Lindhout

Schipper

Abma

(2019). Living a meaningful life and taking good care of oneself in times of illness: Highlighting a dilemma. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 12(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.12.1.03

19.

Theis

K. A.

Furner

S. E.

(2011). Shut-in? Impact of chronic conditions on community participation restriction among older adults. Journal of Aging Research, 2011, Article 759158. https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/759158

20.

Üstün

T. B.

Kostanjsek

Chatterji

Rehm

(Eds.). (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS 2.0. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43974

21.

Ware

Jr Kosinski

Keller

S. D.

(1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Cconstruction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003

22.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/

23.

J. R.

Iwanaga

Chen

Lee

Umucu

Tao

Grenawalt

T. A.

Pfaller

Chan

(2019a). Psychometric validation of the Multiple Sclerosis Community Participation Scale. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 51(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191023

24.

J. R

Iwanaga

Chen

Lee

Umucu

Tao

Grenawalt

T.A.

Pfaller

Chan

Rumrill

(2019b). Psychometric validation of the Brief Multiple Sclerosis Community Participation Scale. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 51(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191023

25.

Yaghmaian

Iwanaga

Grenawalt

T. A.

Reling

Brickham

Chan

(2020). Psychometric validation of the meaningful role functioning questionnaire in a sample of 229 women with fibromyalgia syndrome. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 34(2), 127–138. http://doi.org/10.1891/RE-19-12