Impairment, physical disability, and social disability are constructs used to classify human performance dysfunction. This study presents these constructs as extensions to the theoretical conceptualization of human performance dysfunction and tests their validity in a sample of persons with musculoskeletal disorders. Data representing impairment and physical and social disability were obtained from a random telephone survey of 2,350 working-aged adults who reported a musculoskeletal disorder. Empirical factors derived from principal component analysis of the data were compared with conceptual definitions to establish construct validity. Results were tested on subsamples of males and females. Factors of mobility and posture, manual function, activities of daily living, and work in these data were accurate, minimal representations of the constructs of impairment, physical disability, and social disability. Findings are discussed with reference to further theory development and data collection.
AlbrechtG. L.LevyJ. A. (1981). Constructing disabilities as social problems. In AlbrechtG. L. (Ed.), Cross national rehabilitation policies (pp. 11–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
AlbrechtG. L.LevyJ. A. (1984). A sociological perspective of physical disability. In RuffiniJ. L. (Ed.), Advances in medical social science (pp. 45–106). New York: Gordon and Breach.
3.
BerkowitzE. D. (1979). Disability policies and government programs. New York: Praeger.
4.
BerkowitzM.JohnsonW. G.MonroeE. H. (1976). Public policy toward disability. New York: Praeger.
5.
BrinbergD.McGrathJ. E. (1982). A network of validity concepts within the research process. In BrinbergD.KidderL. H. (Eds.), Forms of validity in research (pp. 5–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
7.
CattellR. B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction to essentials. Biometrics, 21, 190–215.
8.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
9.
CronbachL. J. (1954). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
10.
CronbachL. J. (1971). Test validation. In ThorndikeR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
11.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–301.
12.
DaitzB. D. (1965). The challenge of disability. American Journal of Public Health, 55, 528–534.
13.
GarradJ.BennettA. E. (1971). A validated interview schedule for use in population surveys of chronic disease and disability. British Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25, 97–104.
14.
GersonE. H. (1976). On “quality of life”. American Sociological Review, 41, 793–806.
15.
GorsuchE. H. (1974). Factor analysis. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
16.
HaberL. D. (1967). Identifying the disabled: Concepts and methods in the measurement of disability. Social Security Bulletin, 30, 17–34.
17.
HaberL. D.SmithR. T. (1971). Disability and deviance: Normative adaptations of role behavior. American Sociological Review, 36, 87–97.
18.
HarmanH. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.
19.
KielhofnerG. (1980a). A model of human occupation. Part 1, conceptual framework and content. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 34, 572–581.
20.
KielhofnerG. (1980b). A model of human occupation. Part 3, benign and vicious cycles. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 34, 731–737.
21.
KimJ. O.MuellerC. W. (1978). Factor analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
KolbergJ. E. (1981). Conceptions of social disability. In AlbrechtG. L. (Ed.), Cross national rehabilitation policies (pp. 97–108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
LangbeinL. I.LichtmanA. J. (1978). Ecological inference. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
LinnM. W. (1976). Studies in rating the physical, mental, and social dysfunction of the chronically ill aged. Medical Care, 14, 119–125.
25.
MeenanR. F.GertmanP. M.MasonJ. H.DunaifR. (1982). The arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 25, 1048–1053.
26.
MosierC. I. (1947). A critical examination of the concepts of face validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7, 191–205.
27.
MosierC. I. (1951). Problems and designs of cross-validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 11, 5–11.
28.
NagiS. Z. (1965). Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In SussmanM. B. (Ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation (pp. 100–113). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
29.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
RogersJ. C. (1982). Order and disorder in medicine and occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36, 29–35.
31.
Safilios-RothschildC. (1970). The sociology and social psychology of disability and rehabilitation. New York: Random House.
32.
SechrestL. (1963). Incremental validity: A recommendation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 53–158.
33.
Social Security Administration. (1981). Disability survey 72. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
StewartA. L.WareJ. E.BrookR. H. (1981). Advances in the measurement of functional status: Construction of aggregate indexes. Medical Care, 19, 473–497.
35.
StoneD. A. (1981). The definition and determination of disability in public programs. In AlbrechtG. L. (Ed.), Cross national rehabilitation policies (pp. 49–63). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ.FagerhaughS.GlaserB. G.MainesD.SuczekB.WienerC. L. (1984). Chronic illness and the quality of life (2nd ed.) St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
37.
TurnerR. J.WoodD.W. (1983). The physically disabled in the community. Final Report for Department of Health and Welfare, Canada.
38.
World Health Organization (WHO). (1980). International classification of impairments, disability, and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
