Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators

Abstract

Objective:

This study examined the construct validity of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators.

Design:

We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study of rehabilitation outcomes.

Subjects:

The parent study included 604 community-dwelling adults with chronic traumatic brain injury, stroke, or spinal cord injury. The sample had a mean age of 64.1 years, was two-thirds male, and included a high proportion of racial minorities (n = 250, 41.4%).

Main measures:

The Enfranchisement scale contains two subscales: the Control subscale and the Importance subscale. We examined correlations between each Enfranchisement subscale and measures of participation, environment, and impairments. The current analyses included cases with at least 80% of items completed on each subscale (Control subscale: n = 391; Importance subscale: n = 219). Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation.

Results:

The sample demonstrated high scores, indicating poor enfranchisement (Control subscale: M = 51.7; Importance subscale: M = 43.0). Both subscales were most strongly associated with measures of participation (Control subscale: r = 0.56; Importance subscale: r = 0.52), and least strongly associated with measures of cognition (Control subscale: r = 0.03; Importance subscale: r = 0.03). The Importance subscale was closely associated with depression (r = 0.54), and systems, services, and policies (r = 0.50). Both subscales were associated with social attitudes (Control subscale: r = 0.44; Importance subscale: r = 0.44) and social support (Control subscale: r = 0.49; Importance subscale: r = 0.41).

Conclusions:

We found evidence of convergent validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of participation, and discriminant validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of disability-related impairments. The analyses also revealed the importance of the environment to enfranchisement outcomes.

Keywords

Validity patient-centred outcome measure community participation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Law

Participation in the occupations of everyday life. Am J Occup Ther 2002; 56(6): 640–649.

Yasui

Berven

NL.

Community integration: conceptualisation and measurement. Disabil Rehabil 2009; 31(9): 761–771.

Whiteneck

Dijkers

MP.

Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90(11 Suppl): S22–S35.

Heinemann

AW.

Measurement of participation in rehabilitation research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91(9 Suppl): S1–S4.

Chang

Coster

Helfrich

CA.

Community participation measures for people with disabilities: a systematic review of content from an international classification of functioning, disability and health perspective. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94(4): 771–781.

Hammel

Magasi

Heinemann

, et al. What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30(19): 1445–1460.

Heinemann

Lai

Magasi

, et al. Measuring participation enfranchisement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92(4): 564–571.

Heinemann

Magasi

Bode

, et al. Measuring enfranchisement: importance of and control over participation by people with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94(11): 2157–2165.

Heinemann

Miskovic

Semik

, et al. Measuring environmental factors: unique and overlapping international classification of functioning, disability and health coverage of 5 instruments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016; 97(12): 2113–2122.

10.

Wong

Baum

Magasi

, et al. Associations between praticipation of adults with neurological disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96(10): E6.

11.

Bode

Hahn

DeVellis

, et al. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system social domain working G. measuring participation: the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system experience. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91(9 Suppl): S60–S65.

12.

Heinemann

Kisala

Hahn

, et al. Development and psychometric characteristics of the SCI-QOL ability to participate and satisfaction with social roles and activities item banks and short forms. J Spinal Cord Med 2015; 38(3): 397–408.

13.

Fries

Bruce

Bjorner

, et al. More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: moving beyond the classic instruments. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65 (Suppl 3): iii16–iii21.

14.

Pilkonis

Choi

Reise

, et al. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(R)): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment 2011; 18(3): 263–283.

15.

Tang

Ekundayo

Peipert

, et al. Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-57 and -29 item short forms among kidney transplant recipients. Qual Life Res 2019; 28(3): 815–827.

16.

Weintraub

Dikmen

Heaton

, et al. Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology 2013; 80(11 Suppl 3): S54–S64.

17.

Mokkink

Terwee

Patrick

, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19(4): 539–549.

18.

Sterne

White

Carlin

, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009; 338: b2393.

19.

Kersey

McCue

Skidmore

Domains and dimensions of community participation following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2020; 34: 708–712.

20.

Moriarty

Winter

Robinson

, et al. Exploration of individual and family factors related to community reintegration in veterans with traumatic brain injury. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2015; 21(3): 195–211.

21.

Orff

Hays

Twamley

EW.

Multivariate assessment of subjective and objective measures of social and family satisfaction in veterans with history of traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Res Dev 2016; 53(5): 541–550.

22.

Graham

DP.

Association of chronic pain and community integration of returning veterans with and without traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2016; 31(1): E1–E12.

23.

Erler

Whiteneck

Juengst

, et al. Predicting the trajectory of participation after traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal analysis. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2018; 33(4): 257–265.

24.

Cantor

Ashman

Dams-O’Connor

, et al. Evaluation of the short-term executive plus intervention for executive dysfunction after traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial with minimization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95(1): 1–9e3.

25.

Cicerone

Mott

Azulay

, et al. A randomized controlled trial of holistic neuropsychologic rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89(12): 2239–2249.

26.

Tefertiller

Hays

Natale

, et al. Results from a randomized controlled trial to address balance deficits after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019; 100(8): 1409–1416.

27.

Bier

Dutil

Couture

Factors affecting leisure participation after a traumatic brain injury: an exploratory study. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2009; 24(3): 187–194.

28.

Rapport

Hanks

Bryer

RC.

Barriers to driving and community integration after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2006; 21(1): 34–44.

29.

Stalnacke

BM.

Community integration, social support and life satisfaction in relation to symptoms 3 years after mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2007; 21(9): 933–942.