Objective: To report on the feasibility and psychometric properties in terms of homogeneity and construct validity of a newly developed handicap questionnaire focusing on person-perceived handicaps: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA).
Design: Cross-sectional.
Setting, subjects and outcome measure: One hundred consecutive individuals from the outpatient clinic of the department of rehabilitation of an academic hospital administered the new questionnaire IPA.
Results: The results show good homogeneity and construct validity of the IPA. Factor analysis showed that the scale consists of four factors, explaining 68% of the total variance: social relationships, autonomy in self-care, mobility and leisure, and family role. Homogeneity of the four subscales was considered good, Cronbach's α ranged from 0.84 (family role) to 0.87 (social relationships). Feasibility in terms of the number of missing values and administration time needed was satisfactory.
Conclusion: The first results suggest that the IPA promises to be a useful handicap questionnaire. Further research is needed to establish test–retest reliability, convergent validity and responsiveness to change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
World Health Organization. The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980.
2.
World Health Organization. ICIDH-2: International Classification of Impairments, Activities, and Participation. A manual of dimensions of disablement and health. Beta-1 Draft for field trials. Geneva: WHO, 1997.
3.
Bos GAM van den, Triemstra AHM. Quality of life as an instrument for need assessment and outcome assessment of health care in chronic patients. Qual Health Care (in press).
4.
Carr AJ, Thompson, PW. Towards a measure of patient-perceived handicap in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol1994; 33: 378–382.
5.
Bos GAM van den. The burden of chronic disease in terms of disability, use of health care and healthy life expectancies. Eur J Public Health1995; 5: 29–34.
6.
Kottke FJ. Philosophic considerations of quality of life for the disabled. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1982; 63: 60–62.
7.
O'Donoghue MF, Duncan JS, Sander JWAS. The subjective handicap of epilepsy, a new approach to measuring treatment outcome. Brain1998; 121: 317–343.
8.
Bury MR. The ICIDH: a review of research and prospects. Int Disabil Stud1987; 9: 118–122.
9.
Goldstein B, Hammond M. Physical medicine and rehabilitation. JAMA1997; 277: 1891–1892.
10.
Badley EM. The genesis of handicap: definition, models of disablement, and role of external factors. Disabil Rehabil1995; 17: 53–62.
11.
Harwood RH, Jitapunkul S, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: motives, methods, and a model. Qual Health Care1994; 3: 53–57.
12.
Peters DJ. Human experience in disablement: the imperative of the ICIDH. Disabil Rehabil1995; 17: 135–144.
13.
Peters DJ. Disablement observed, addressed, and experienced: integrating subjective experience into disablement models. Disabil Rehabil1996; 18: 593–603.
14.
Abresch RT, Seyden NK, Wineinger MA. Quality of life. Issues for persons with neuromuscular diseases. In: Kraft GH, Carter GT eds. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America. Rehabilitation of neuromuscular disorders. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998: 233–248.
15.
Wyller TB. Disability models in geriatrics: comprehensive rather than competing models should be promoted. Disabil Rehabil1997; 19: 480–483.
16.
Haas JF, Mackenzie CA. The role of ethics in rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: S3–S6.
17.
Sim J. Respect for autonomy: issues in neurological rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 3–10.
18.
Keith RA. Conceptual basis of outcome measures. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1995; 74: 73–80.
19.
Cardol M, Brandsma JW, Groot IJM de, Bos GAM van den, Haan RJ de, Jong BA de. Handicap questionnaires: what do they assess?Disabil Rehabil1999; 21: 97–105.
20.
Bowling A. Measuring health. A review of quality of life measurement scales, second edition. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1997.
21.
Bland JM Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ1997; 314: 572-572.
22.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica1951; 16: 297–334.
23.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
24.
Schuling J, Haan R de, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index: assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke1993; 24: 1173–1177.
25.
Kim J, Mueller C. Introduction to factor analysis: what it is and how to do it. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, 1978.
26.
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, second edition. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press, 1988: 604-604.
27.
Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ, Aaronson NK. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures: the Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcome Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, the Coop/Wonca charts, and the Euroqol instrument. Med Care1997; 35: 522–537.
28.
Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res1993; 2: 369–395.
29.
Zola IK. Denial of emotional needs to people with handicaps. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1982; 63: 63–67.
30.
Gillon R. Autonomy and the principle of respect for autonomy. BMJ1985; 290: 1806–1808.
31.
Haas J. Ethical considerations of goal setting for patient care in rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74 (suppl): 16–20.
