The Client-Clinician Assessment Protocol (C-CAP): Evaluation of its Psychometric Properties for Use with People Aging with Disabilities in Need of Home Modifications
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2007
The Client-Clinician Assessment Protocol (C-CAP): Evaluation of its Psychometric Properties for Use with People Aging with Disabilities in Need of Home Modifications
The objective of this study was to evaluate aspects of the validity and reliability of the Client-Clinician Assessment Protocol (C-CAP) Part I. C-CAP data for 103 people aging with disabilities in need of home modification services were analyzed using the Rasch rating scale model. The C-CAP Part I consists of a client self-report of ability in daily life tasks comprising three scales (independence, difficulty, and safety). The analysis demonstrated support for internal scale validity, person response validity, and person separation reliability of the C-CAP Part I, although the results differed among the three scales. The results of this study indicated that the C-CAP Part I has psychometric strengths and limitations. The instrument has the potential to be used in the home environment with people who are aging with disabilities. The C-CAP could complement already existing tools that are used to assess functioning in activities of daily living, especially regarding the focus on the clients' self-report of difficulty and safety in daily life at home and in the community.
AlbrechtG. L.JetteA. M.PetriH.SiegelL. (2001). An evaluation of Swedish disability research. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research.
2.
American Association of Retired Persons. (2003). A report to the nation on independent living and disability. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
BeatonD. E.BombardierC.GuilleminF.FerrazM. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186–3191.
4.
BondT. G.FoxC. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurements in human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.
5.
Boverket. (2000). Handbok for bostadsanpassningsbidraget [Guidelines for the home modification grant]. Karlshamn, Sweden: Boverket.
6.
DobleS. E.FisherA. G. (1998). The dimensionality and validity of the Older Americans Recourses and Services (OARS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Scale. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2, 4–24.
7.
FängeA.IwarssonS. (2005). Changes in ADL dependence and aspects of usability following housing adaptations: A longitudinal perspective. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 296–304.
8.
FillenbaumG. G. (1988). Multidimensional functional assessment of older adults: The Duke older Americans resources and services procedures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.
9.
FisherA. G. (1997). Multifaceted measurement of daily life task performance: Conceptualizing a test of instrumental ADL and validating the addition of personal ADL tasks. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: State of the Art Reviews, 11, 289–303.
10.
FisherA. G. (2005). Assessment of motor and process skills: Development, standardization, and administration manual (6th ed.). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
11.
FisherW. P. (1992). Reliability statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6, 238.
12.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975). “Mini-Mental State”: A practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.
13.
FriedL. P.YoungY.RubinG.Bandeen-RocheK., and the WHAS II Collaborative Research Group. (2001). Self-reported preclinical disability identifies older women with early declines in performance and early disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 889–901.
14.
GillT. M.RobisonJ. T.TinettiM. E. (1998). Difficulty and dependence: Two components of the disability continuum among community-living older persons. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 96–101.
15.
GitlinL. N.CorcoranM. (2000). Client-Clinician Assessment Protocol (C-CAP). Philadelphia: Thomas Jefferson University.
16.
GuralnikJ. M.BranchL. G.CummingsS. R.CurbJ. D. (1989). Physical performance measures in aging research. Journal of Gerontology, 44, M141–M146.
17.
IwarssonS. (2005). A long-term perspective on person-environment fit and ADL dependence among older Swedish adults. The Gerontologist, 45, 327–336.
18.
JaggerC.ArthurA. J.SpiersN. A.ClarkeM. (2001). Patterns of onset of disability in activities of daily living with age. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49, 404–409.
19.
KatzS.FordA. B.MoskowitzR. W.JacksonB. A.JaffeM. W. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged. The Index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 914–919.
20.
KeithR. A.GrangerC. V.HamiltonB. B.SherwinF. S. (1987). The functional independence measure: A new tool for rehabilitation. Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation, 1, 6–18.
21.
KielhofnerG. (1995). A model of human occupation: Theory and application (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
22.
KielhofnerG. (2002). A model of human occupation: Theory and application (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
23.
KüçükdeveciA.YavuzerG.TennantA.SüldürN.SonelB.ArasilT. (2000). Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 32, 87–92.
24.
LawtonM. P.BrodyE. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 179–186.
25.
LawtonM. P.NahemovL. E. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In EisdorferC.LawtonM. P. (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 619–674). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26.
LiljaM. (2002). Riktlinjer för användning av Client-Clinician Assessment Protocol (C-CAP) [Guidelines for using Client-Clinician Assessment Protocol (C-CAP)]. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet.
27.
LinacreJ. M. (1994–2005). FACETS: Many-facet Rasch measurement computer program (Version 3.54). Chicago: MESA.
28.
LinacreJ. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85–106.
29.
LinacreJ. M.HeinemannA. W.WrightB. D.GrangerC. V.HamiltonB. B. (1994). The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 127–132.
30.
MahoneyF. I.BarthelD. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.
31.
MannW. C.HurrenD.TomitaM.BengaliM.SteinfeldE. (1994). Environmental problems in homes of elders with disabilities. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 14, 191–211.
32.
McCreadieC.TinkerA. (2005). The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Aging & Society, 25, 91–110.
33.
NilssonÅ. L.SunnerhagenK. S.GrimbyG. (2005). Scoring alternatives for FIM in neurological disorders applying Rasch analysis. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 111, 264–273.
34.
RadloffL. S. (1977). The CESD scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
35.
ReubenD. B.SeemanT. E.KeelerE.HayesR. P.BowmanL.SewallA. (2004). Refining the categorization of physical functional status: The added value of combining self-reported and performance-based measures. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 59, M1056–M1061.
36.
RogersJ. C.HolmM. B.StoneR. G. (1997). Evaluation of daily living tasks: The home care advantage. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 410–422.
37.
SchultzR.HeckhausenJ. (1999). Aging, culture and control: Setting a new research agenda. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 54, P139–P145.
38.
SimonsickE. M.GuralnikJ. M.FriedL. P. (1999). Who walks? Factors associated with walking behavior in disabled older women with and without self-reported walking difficulty. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47, 672–680.
39.
Socialstyrelsen. (2002). Äldre som flyttar till service och vård [Elderly that move to service and care]. Stockholm: Author.
40.
SteinfeldE.DanfordG. S. (1999). Enabling environments: Measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
41.
StreinerD.NormanG. (2003). Health measurement scales. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
Svensk Författningssamling, SFS1992:1574. Lag om bostadsanpassning mm [Swedish act on home modification grants etc].
43.
TennantA.PentaM.TesioL.GrimbyG.ThonnardJ. L.SladeA.. (2004). Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: The PRO-ESOR project. Medical Care, 42, I37–I48.
44.
WrightB.LinacreJ. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
45.
ZimmerZ.ChappellN. L. (1999). Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 222–230.
