Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: Construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use

Purpose. The aim of this study was to investigate the constructs of mobility-related participation and user satisfaction, two important outcome dimensions within praxis and research on mobility device interventions. Method. To fulfill this aim, validity and reliability of a 12-item scale on mobility-related participation and a 10-item scale on user satisfaction were examined in the context of older people's powered wheelchair use (n = 111). Rasch analysis and correlation analysis were applied. Results. Construct validity of both scales was confirmed. The reliability of the user satisfaction scale was good, while the mobility-related participation scale was not optimal in discriminating between persons with a high degree of mobility-related participation. It was demonstrated that mobility-related participation and user satisfaction are separate, not related constructs. Conclusions. It can be concluded that the investigated mobility-related participation and user satisfaction constructs appear to be valid. Since the two constructs are not related and both yield important information, both dimensions should be evaluated in outcomes research and praxis targeting powered wheelchair interventions. Reliability problems of the mobility-related participation scale indicate the complexity of this construct. The results have been instrumental in the development of a new scale for measuring mobility-related participation ‘The NOMO 1.0’.

[1]  J. A. Swisher,et al.  The General Assembly , 1947, International Organization.

[2]  C. McHorney,et al.  Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges. , 1999, Annual review of public health.

[3]  Ingvor Pettersson,et al.  The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[4]  David J. Bartholomew,et al.  The Statistical Approach to Social Measurement , 1996 .

[5]  A. Jette,et al.  Are the ICF Activity and Participation dimensions distinct? , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[6]  I. W. Molenaar,et al.  Rasch models: foundations, recent developments and applications , 1995 .

[7]  G. Chard.  International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health , 2004 .

[8]  S. Jedeloo,et al.  Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[9]  Alarcos Cieza,et al.  Classification of Functioning , Disability and Health ( ICF ) in health outcome evaluation-review and outlook of the use of the ICF in clinical practice , 2006 .

[10]  W. Molenaar.  Statistical Methods for Quality of Life Studies. Design Measurements and Analysis. , 2002 .

[11]  R Wessels.  Ask the user : user perspective in the assessment of assistive technology , 2004 .

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

[13]  L. Rajmil.  Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, 3rd ed , 2005 .

[14]  M. Dijkers,et al.  Participation Objective, Participation Subjective: A Measure of Participation Combining Outsider and Insider Perspectives , 2004, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[15]  A. Jette,et al.  Beyond function: predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[16]  Measuring participation in people living with multiple sclerosis: A comparison of self-reported frequency, importance and self-efficacy , 2008, Disability and rehabilitation.

[17]  Susanne Iwarsson,et al.  Towards an instrument targeting mobility-related participation: Nordic cross-national reliability. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[18]  Åse Brandt.  Outcomes of Rollator and Powered Wheelchair Interventions - User Satisfaction and Participation , 2005 .

[19]  R. Wessels,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[20]  K. Samuelsson,et al.  User Satisfaction with Mobility Assistive Devices , 2004 .

[21]  Linamara Rizzo Battistella,et al.  Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade (CIF) , 2002, Acta Fisiátrica.

[22]  S. Kreiner,et al.  Analysis of Local Dependence and Multidimensionality in Graphical Loglinear Rasch Models , 2004 .

[23]  P. Era,et al.  Item bias in self-reported functional ability among 75-year-old men and women in three Nordic localities , 1996, Scandinavian journal of social medicine.

[24]  Åse Brandt.  Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and content validation of the QUEST , 2006 .

[25]  Karl Bang Christensen,et al.  Graphical Rasch Models , 2002 .

[26]  Louise Demers,et al.  The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress , 2002 .

[27]  Erling B. Andersen,et al.  Sufficient statistics and latent trait models , 1977 .

[28]  S. Iwarsson,et al.  Two dimensions of participation in very old age and their relations to home and neighborhood environments. , 2008, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[29]  Å. Brandt,et al.  Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[30]  Rhoda Weiss-Lambrou,et al.  An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST) , 1999 .

[31]  Ewa Wressle,et al.  User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process , 2008, Disability and rehabilitation.

[32]  P. Rosenbaum.  Criterion-related construct validity , 1989 .

[33]  A. Frank,et al.  Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[34]  G. Rasch,et al.  An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. , 1966, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.