Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE To examine the homogeneity, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and concurrent validity of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire (IPAQ). DESIGN Cross-sectional study with a test-retest subsample. PATIENTS One hundred twenty-six persons from 5 diagnostic groups recruited from the outpatients clinics of 2 rehabilitation centers and the rehabilitation department of an academic hospital. INTERVENTIONS The IPAQ and 3 other self-administered questionnaires (Sickness Impact Profile [68-item version], London Handicap Scale [LHS], Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Health Survey). The IPAQ was completed twice by 75 respondents within approximately 2 weeks. RESULTS The IPAQ addresses autonomy and participation in 5 domains: autonomy indoors, family role, autonomy outdoors, social relations, and work and educational opportunities. Cronbach's alpha for the several domains ranged between.81 and.91, indicating good homogeneity. On item level, weighted kappas ranged between.56 and.90. On domain level, the test-retest reliability of the IPAQ was good: intraclass correlation coefficients ranged between.83 and.91. Convergent validity was largely supported by the correlations between 4 domains of the LHS and the IPAQ. Discriminant validity was best demonstrated by low correlations between the IPAQ and 2 domains of the LHS representing theoretically different constructs. CONCLUSION The IPAQ is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing autonomy and participation in chronic disorders. Its responsiveness requires further study.

[1]  A. Feinstein,et al.  High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[3]  R Loo,et al.  The orthogonal rotation of factors in clinical research: a critical note. , 1979, Journal of clinical psychology.

[4]  M. Stokes,et al.  Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses , 1998, Clinical rehabilitation.

[5]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[6]  D. Robinson,et al.  The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. , 1985, International rehabilitation medicine.

[7]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[8]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[9]  John E. Ware,et al.  SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales : a user's manual , 1994 .

[10]  R. D. de Haan,et al.  Handicap questionnaires: what do they assess? , 1999, Disability and rehabilitation.

[11]  P. Wood,et al.  The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps of the World Health Organization , 1990 .

[12]  M. Mullee,et al.  Generic health status measures are unsuitable for measuring health status in severely disabled people , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[13]  B Kirshner,et al.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[14]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  D. Altman,et al.  A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. , 1990, Computers in biology and medicine.

[16]  J. Bartko The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Reliability , 1966, Psychological reports.

[17]  R. Harwood,et al.  Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale. , 1994, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[18]  J. Carlin,et al.  Bias, prevalence and kappa. , 1993, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  A. Feinstein,et al.  High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  L. D. de Witte,et al.  The development of a short generic version of the Sickness Impact Profile. , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  L. D. de Witte,et al.  The SIP68: a measure of health-related functional status in rehabilitation medicine. , 1996, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[22]  C. Jenkinson,et al.  Evaluating the efficacy of medical treatment: possibilities and limitations. , 1995, Social science & medicine.

[23]  R. Harwood,et al.  Measuring handicap: the London Handicap Scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. , 1994, Quality in health care : QHC.

[24]  G. A. van den Bos,et al.  The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA) , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[25]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Denise Polit-O'Hara,et al.  Nursing Research: Principles and Methods , 1978 .