The aim of this study was to translate the Measure of Quality of the Environment–Short Form (MQE-SF) into Turkish language and to evaluate the validity and reliability. The MQE-SF was culturally adapted via an internationally suggested method. A total of 185 volunteers with disabilities (age range = 18-55 y/o, 107 males; 78 females) from the Disabled People Association of Turkey completed the MQE-SF. To evaluate the MQE-SF’s criterion/concurrent validity, the Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF) was also administered. Test–retest reliability was evaluated by administering MQE-SF to 85 participants a second time within 14 days of initial administration. The alpha coefficient measuring the internal consistency of the questionnaire were .84 and .83. The criterion-related validity was moderate between the MQE-SF Barriers and the CHIEF (r = –.46, p < .05). The questionnaire was moderately reliable in terms of the test–retest reliability (r = .69, .70 p < .05). The Turkish adaptation of the MQE-SF had good internal consistency and moderate criterion-related validity as well as test–retest reliability for people with disabilities.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain & process (3rd ed.). The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(Suppl. 1), S1-S48.
2.
BeatonD. E.BombardierC.GuilleminF.FerrazM. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186-3191.
3.
BoschenK. A. (1998). Reliability studies of the Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE). Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 11, 184-185.
4.
BoucherN.DumasF. B.MaltaisD.RichardsC. L. (2010). The influence of selected personal and environmental factors on leisure activities in adults with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, 1328-1338.
5.
BronfenbrennerU. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models. In FriedmanS. L.WachsT. D. (Eds.), Measuring environment across the lifespan: Emerging methods and concepts. (pp.3-28) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
ChavesE. S.BoningerM. L.CooperR.FitzgeraldS. G.GrayD. B.CooperR. A. (2004). Assessing the influence of wheelchair technology on perception of participation in spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 1854-1858.
7.
DanfordG. S.SteinfeldE. (1999). Measuring the influences of physical environments on the behaviors of people with impairments. In DanfordG. S.SteinfeldE. (Eds.), Enabling environments (pp. 111-137). Boston, MA: Springer.
8.
DijkersM. P. J. M.YavuzerG.ErginS.WeitzenkampD.WhiteneckG. G. (2002). A tale of two countries: Environmental impacts on social participation after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 40, 351-362.
9.
DongY.SharmaV. K.ChanB. P. L.VenketasubramanianN.TeohH. L.SeetR. C. S.. . . ChenC. (2010). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of vascular cognitive impairment after acute stroke. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 299(1), 15-18.
10.
DunnW.BrownC.McGuiganA. (1994). The ecology of human performance: A framework for considering the effect of context. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 595-607.
11.
EfeA.SözerS. (2015). The Role of Local Governments in Creating a Community for Everyone. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 20(4), 87-97.
12.
EphraimP. L.MacKenzieE. J.WegenerS. T.DillinghamT. R.PezzinL. E. (2006). Environmental barriers experienced by amputees: The Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors–Short Form. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 328-333.
13.
ErolS. I. (2014). Problems of Moral and Social Security Social Security System in TurkeyKamu-Is, 13(3), 37-70.
14.
FougeyrollasP.NoreauL.BoschenK. (2002). Interaction of environment with individual characteristics and social participation: Theoretical perspectives and applications in persons with spinal cord injury. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 7(3), 1-16.
15.
GagnonC.MathieuJ.JeanS.LabergeL.PerronM.VeilletteS.. . . NoreauL. (2008). Predictors of disrupted social participation in myotonic dystrophy type 1. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1246-1255.
16.
HeinemannA. W.MiskovicA.SemikP.WongA.DashnerJ.BaumC.. . . JerousekS. (2016). Measuring environmental factors: Unique and overlapping International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health coverage of 5 instruments. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97, 2113-2122.
17.
KayihanH.TekindalB.IrmakA.AkyurekG. (2013). “Let’s overcome barriers together”. Awareness and Accessibility Guidelines. Ankara, Turkey: Disabled Students Unit
18.
LawM.PetrenchikT.KingG.HurleyP. (2007). Perceived environmental barriers to recreational, community, and school participation for children and youth with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 1636-1642.
19.
LevasseurM.DesrosiersJ.NoreauL. (2004). Relationships between environment and quality of life of older adults with physical disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 22(3), 37-53.
20.
NoreauL.FougeyrollasP.BoschenK. (2002). Perceived influence of the environment on social participation among individuals with spinal cord injury. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 7(3), 56-72.
21.
ÖzşenolF.IşıkhanV.ÜnayB.AydınH. İ.AkınR.GökçayE. (2003). Evaluation the functions of families have children with disabilities. Gulhane Medical Journal, 45, 156-164.
22.
RandströmK. B.AsplundK.SvedlundM. (2012). Impact of environmental factors in home rehabilitation–A qualitative study from the perspective of older persons using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to describe facilitators and barriers. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34, 779-787.
23.
RichardsJ. S.BombardierC. H.TateD.DijkersM.GordonW.ShewchukR.DeVivoM. J. (1999). Access to the environment and life satisfaction after spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 1501-1506.
24.
RigbyP.CooperB.LettsL.StewartD.StrongS. (2005). Measuring environmental factors. In LawM.BaumC.DunnW. (Eds.), Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy (2nd ed., pp. 317-44). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
25.
SilvaF.SampaioR. F.FerreiraF. R.CamargosV. P.NevesJ. A. (2013). Influence of context in social participation of people with disabilities in Brazil. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 34, 250-256.
26.
SimsekA. B.DicleA. (2013). Investigation of Adaptation Status According to Roy Adaptation Model of Primary Brain Tumor: A Qualitative Research. Journal of Neurological Sciences, 30(1), 88-107.
27.
StarkS. L.SanfordJ. A. (2005). Environmental enablers and their impact on occupational performance. In ChristiansenC. H.BaumC. M.Bass-HaugenJ. D. (Eds.), Occupational therapy: Performance, participation and well-being (pp. 299-327). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
VikK.NyårdL.LiljaM. (2007). Perceived environmental influence on participation among older adults after home-based rehabilitation. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 25(4), 1-20.
30.
WhiteneckG. G.Harrison-FelixC. L.MellickD. C.BrooksC. A.CharlifueS. B.GerhartK. A. (2004). Quantifying environmental factors: A measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 1324-1335.
31.
WhiteneckG. G.MeadeM. A.DijkersM.TateD. G.BushnikT.ForchheimerM. B. (2004). Environmental factors and their role in participation and life satisfaction after spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 1793-1803.
