Test-retest Reliability and Internal Structure of the Brazilian Version of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA-Br4) for Individuals with Physical Disabilities

Overview

Journal Braz J Phys Ther

Specialty Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2024 Dec 12

PMID 39667260

Authors

Ana Amelia Moraes Antunes

Graciandre Almeida Neves

Bianca Pantuzza Santana Rojas

Daniela Virginia Vaz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Participation is considered a central outcome of rehabilitation and needs to be appropriately assessed from a perspective that values individual values and preferences. The Brazilian version of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA-Br4) is the only adequate instrument to assess participation from a subjective perspective in Brazil.

Objective: To investigate the test-retest reliability and internal structure (structural validity and internal consistency) of the digital version of IPA-Br4 for individuals with physical disabilities.

Methods: Test-retest reliability was assessed with Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), structural validity with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and internal consistency with Cronbach α.

Results: Thirty (43.25 ± 10.6 years old, 63.3% female) and 130 (47.51 ± 15.73 years old, 58.5% male) individuals participated in the test-retest reliability and structural validity assessments, respectively. ICCs for each domain were: Autonomy indoors = 0.84; Family role = 0.87; Social life and relationships = 0.87; Autonomy outdoors = 0.84. The CFA model for four factors showed appropriate fit with factor loadings indicating that all items loaded onto their respective factors, with magnitudes > 0.30 (p < 0.05). All Cronbach α values (internal consistency) were above 0.82.

Conclusion: The digital version of IPA-Br4 has adequate test-retest reliability and internal structure to be used with adults with physical disabilities.

References

Li C . Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2015; 48(3):936-49. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7. View

Chang F, Coster W, Helfrich C . Community participation measures for people with disabilities: a systematic review of content from an international classification of functioning, disability and health perspective. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 94(4):771-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.10.031. View

Brown M, Dijkers M, Gordon W, Ashman T, Charatz H, Cheng Z . Participation objective, participation subjective: a measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004; 19(6):459-81. DOI: 10.1097/00001199-200411000-00004. View

Ghaziani E, Krogh A, Lund H . Developing a Danish version of the "Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire". Scand J Occup Ther. 2012; 20(3):190-200. DOI: 10.3109/11038128.2012.737370. View

Fallahpour M, Jonsson H, Joghataei M, Kottorp A . Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA): PSYChometric evaluation of the Persian version to use for persons with stroke. Scand J Occup Ther. 2010; 18(1):59-71. DOI: 10.3109/11038121003628353. View

Whiteneck G, Dijkers M . Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 90(11 Suppl):S22-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.06.009. View

Noonan V, Kopec J, Noreau L, Singer J, Masse L, Dvorak M . Comparing the reliability of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. J Rehabil Med. 2010; 42(8):735-43. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0583. View

Caron J, Martin Ginis K, Rocchi M, Sweet S . Development of the Measure of Experiential Aspects of Participation for People With Physical Disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 100(1):67-77.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.08.183. View

Vargus-Adams J . The conceptualization of participation. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012; 54(9):777. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04353.x. View

10.

Cardol M, de Haan R, de Jong B, van den Bos G, de Groot I . Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82(2):210-6. DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2001.18218. View

11.

van Brakel W, Anderson A, Mutatkar R, Bakirtzief Z, Nicholls P, Raju M . The Participation Scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil. 2006; 28(4):193-203. DOI: 10.1080/09638280500192785. View

12.

Terwee C, Prinsen C, Chiarotto A, Westerman M, Patrick D, Alonso J . COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1159-1170. PMC: 5891557. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0. View

13.

Souza M, Coster W, Mancini M, Dutra F, Kramer J, Sampaio R . Rasch analysis of the participation scale (P-scale): usefulness of the P-scale to a rehabilitation services network. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):934. PMC: 5721585. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4945-9. View

14.

Keszei A, Novak M, Streiner D . Introduction to health measurement scales. J Psychosom Res. 2010; 68(4):319-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.006. View

15.

Suttiwong J, Vongsirinavarat M, Vachalathiti R, Chaiyawat P . Impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: psychometric properties of the thai version. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013; 25(7):769-74. PMC: 3820408. DOI: 10.1589/jpts.25.769. View

16.

Heinemann A, Magasi S, Bode R, Hammel J, Whiteneck G, Bogner J . Measuring enfranchisement: importance of and control over participation by people with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94(11):2157-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.017. View

17.

Karhula M, Salminen A, Hamalainen P, Ruutiainen J, Era P, Tolvanen A . Psychometric evaluation of the Finnish version of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire in persons with multiple sclerosis. Scand J Occup Ther. 2017; 24(6):410-420. DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2016.1272630. View

18.

Martin Ginis K, Evans M, Mortenson W, Noreau L . Broadening the Conceptualization of Participation of Persons With Physical Disabilities: A Configurative Review and Recommendations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 98(2):395-402. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.04.017. View

19.

Noonan V, Kopec J, Noreau L, Singer J, Chan A, Masse L . Comparing the content of participation instruments using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7:93. PMC: 2785762. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-93. View

20.

Prinsen C, Vohra S, Rose M, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M . How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core Outcome Set" - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016; 17(1):449. PMC: 5020549. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2. View