A Psychometric Validation of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire in a Sample of Turkish Cancer Survivors

Community participation and autonomy are two of the vital treatments and rehabilitation outcomes for people with chronic health conditions and disabilities, including people with cancer. The purpose of this study is to investigate psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Scale (IPA) in a sample of Turkish cancer survivors. An exploratory factor analysis was used to analyze data collected from 186 cancer survivors who completed the IPA, Health Care Climate Questionnaire, Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Role Functioning subscale of the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire. In contrast to the original five-factor solution, the results provided a better fit for a three-factor correlated model ( Activities of Daily Living [ADL]/ Instrumental ADL, social relations, and employment and education). The IPA factors were significantly associated with supportive healthcare climate, role functioning, and life satisfaction in the theoretically expected directions, providing support for the nomological construct validity of the Turkish version of the IPA. Overall, the Turkish version of the IPA is a psychometrically sound measure of participation and autonomy that can be used to assess cancer survivors’ levels of community participation for treatment planning and selection of evidence-based healthcare and psychosocial interventions for cancer survivors.

[1]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[2]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2021 , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[3]  Xiangli Chen,et al.  The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as a community participation model for people with multiple sclerosis: A hierarchical regression analysis , 2020, Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling.

[4]  J. Bezyak,et al.  Autonomy Support, Life Satisfaction, and Quality of Life of Cancer Patients , 2020 .

[5]  R. Galvin,et al.  The relationship between cancer survivors’ well-being and participation in work, activities of daily living and social engagement: Findings from the European Social Survey (2014) , 2019, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[6]  L. Rydén,et al.  A comprehensive approach to rehabilitation interventions following breast cancer treatment - a systematic review of systematic reviews , 2019, BMC cancer.

[7]  M. Radomski,et al.  Catalyzing Research to Optimize Cancer Survivors’ Participation in Work and Life Roles , 2019, OTJR : occupation, participation and health.

[8]  Y. Grift,et al.  Validity and reliability of the (adjusted) Impact on Participation and Autonomy questionnaire for social-support populations , 2019, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[9]  K. Taber.  The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education , 2017, Research in Science Education.

[10]  J. Bezyak,et al.  Evaluating the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Framework as a Participation Model for Cancer Survivors in Turkey , 2018, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

[11]  D. Howell,et al.  The experience of breast cancer survivors’ participation in important activities during and after treatments , 2017 .

[12]  Robert W. Gibson,et al.  Systematic Review of Occupational Therapy and Adult Cancer Rehabilitation: Part 2. Impact of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation and Psychosocial, Sexuality, and Return-to-Work Interventions , 2017, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[13]  R. Gibson,et al.  Systematic Review of Occupational Therapy and Adult Cancer Rehabilitation: Part 1. Impact of Physical Activity and Symptom Management Interventions , 2017, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[14]  A. Tolvanen,et al.  Psychometric evaluation of the Finnish version of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire in persons with multiple sclerosis , 2017, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[15]  M. Fitch,et al.  Rehabilitation following cancer treatment , 2013, Disability and rehabilitation.

[16]  J. Lai,et al.  Tai Chi Chuan in Medicine and Health Promotion , 2013, Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM.

[17]  P. Chaiyawat,et al.  Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties of the Thai Version , 2013, Journal of physical therapy science.

[18]  J. Sanford,et al.  Home and Community Environmental Features, Activity Performance, and Community Participation among Older Adults with Functional Limitations , 2011, Journal of aging research.

[19]  A. Kottorp,et al.  Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA): Psychometric evaluation of the Persian version to use for persons with stroke , 2011, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[20]  Emre Senol-Durak,et al.  Psychometric Properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish University Students, Correctional Officers, and Elderly Adults , 2010 .

[21]  A. Bottomley,et al.  Understanding the reliability and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Turkish cancer patients. , 2007, European journal of cancer care.

[22]  Maria Larsson Lund,et al.  Impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: internal scale validity of the Swedish version for use in people with spinal cord injury. , 2007, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[23]  M. Cardol,et al.  Validity of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: A comparison between two countries , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation.

[24]  P. Kersten,et al.  Measuring autonomy in disabled people: validation of a new scale in a UK population , 2006, Clinical rehabilitation.

[25]  C. Blanchard,et al.  Predicting physical activity and outcome expectations in cancer survivors: an application of Self‐Determination Theory , 2006, Psycho-oncology.

[26]  Marcia J. Scherer,et al.  Assessing the Benefits of Assistive Technologies for Activities and Participation. , 2005 .

[27]  Lynn F. Bufka,et al.  Operationalizing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in clinical settings , 2005 .

[28]  V. Fialka-Moser,et al.  Cancer rehabilitation: particularly with aspects on physical impairments. , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[29]  C. Ward,et al.  On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[30]  R. D. de Haan,et al.  Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[32]  D. Osoba,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[33]  H. Kaiser,et al.  Little Jiffy, Mark Iv , 1974 .

[34]  R. Brislin.  Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research , 1970 .

[35]  Fong Chan,et al.  Applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health to psychology practice. , 2013 .

[36]  E. Deci,et al.  Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  F. Floyd,et al.  Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. , 1995 .

[38]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Construct validity in psychological tests. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.