Objective: To validate the Southampton Needs Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ) for use with disabled people during face-to-face interviews.
Design: The SNAQ was designed to be used in a cross-sectional survey of disabled people with a physical disability with a follow-up study one year later. Content and criterion validity was examined using 32 disabled people who took part in the pilot study. Construct validity and internal reliability was examined using data from 93 disabled people who took part in the main survey. Responsiveness of the questionnaire was evaluated using the data gathered during a follow-up study of 77 people had taken part in the original study.
Outcome measures: The OPCS Disability Severity Scales (OPCS) and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) were used to measure level of disability of participants, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and the UK version of the SF-36 to examine perceived health status.
Participants: People with a primary physical disability, aged 16–65, randomly selected from two disability registers in southern England.
Main results: Content and criterion validity were established. Construct validity and internal reliability of the SNAQ was good. Inter-rater reliability was not tested since only one researcher conducted the interviews. Test–retest reliability was not formally tested because of the probability that participants would learn from the first needs assessment questionnaire and that different results on a retest occasion could arise from this. The SNAQ was sensitive in picking up changes over time.
Conclusion: The SNAQ has shown good validity (content, coverage and construct), internal reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness. Further studies are needed to define the consequences of meeting or not meeting the rehabilitation needs of disabled people. Inter-rater reliability remains to be established.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Department of Health and Secretaries of State for Health, Social Security Scotland and Wales. The health of the nation. London: HMSO, 1992.
2.
Badley EM, Tennant A. A survey of disablement in a British population using an action-orientated measure, physical independence handicap: Problems with activities of daily living and level of support. Int Disabil Stud1991; 13:91–98.
3.
Badley EM, Tennant A. Impact of disablement due to rheumatic disorders in a British population: estimates of severity and prevalence from the Calderdale Rheumatic Disablement Survey. Ann Rheumat Dis1993; 52: 6–13.
4.
Badley EM, Tennant A. Disablement associated with rheumatic disorders in a British population: Problems with activities of daily living and level of support. Br J Rheumatol1993; 32: 601–608.
5.
Stevens A, Raftery J. Introduction. In: Stevens A, Raftery J eds. Health care needs assessment. The epidemiology based needs assessment reviews. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1994; 11–30.
6.
Kersten P, McLellan DL. The assessment of need in multiple sclerosis. MS Management1995; 2: 50–54.
7.
Lovelock R. Friends in deed: three care attendant schemes for the younger physically disabled in Hampshire. Portsmouth: Social Services Research and Intelligence Unit, 1981.
8.
Martin J, Meltzer H, Elliot D. OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain. Report 1. The prevalence of disability among adults. London: HMSO, 1988.
9.
Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 133–138.
10.
The Center for Functional Assessment Research, State University of New York at Buffalo. Guide for the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation (Adult FIM). Version 4.0. Buffalo, New York: Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation, 1993.
11.
Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke1994; 25: 2391–2397.
12.
Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J et al. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: A validation study. J Epidemiol Commun Health1980; 34: 281–286.
13.
Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract1985; 35: 185–188.
14.
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ1992; 305: 160–164.
15.
Ware JJr, Brook RH, Williams KN, Stewart AL, Davies-Avery A. Conceptualisation and measurement of health for adults in the health insurance study. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1980.
16.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
17.
Warren MD. The prevalence of disability. J R Coll Phys Lond1989; 23: 171–175.
18.
Frankel S. Health needs, health-care requirements, and the myth of infinite demand. Lancet1991; 337: 1588–1589.
19.
Kersten P, McLellan DL, Gross-Paju K et al. A questionnaire assessment of unmet needs for rehabilitation services and resources for people with multiple sclerosis: results of a pilot survey in five European countries. Clin Rehabil2000; 14: 42–49.
