| Literature DB >> 19175918 |
Nilgun Bek1, I Engin Simsek, Suat Erel, Yavuz Yakut, Fatma Uygur.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is a considerably high prevalence of developmental disorders in Turkey there are not many assessment tools related to evaluating the impact of these children on their family. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Impact on Family Scale (IPFAM), a health related quality of life measurement to be utilized in clinical trials, health care services, research and evaluation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19175918 PMCID: PMC2647527 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.186
Demographic data's of participants.
| 6.52 ± 3.33 | |
| Mother | 7.95 ± 3.77 |
| Father | 9.33 ± 3.74 |
| With | 79 (93) |
| Without | 6 (7) |
| Married | 82 (96) |
| Divorced | 3 (4) |
| Living with parent | 85 (100) |
Data related to the IPFAM dimensions, WeeFIM and physiotherapist's assessment.
| 52.02 ± 12.09 | 51.74 ± 11.62 | |
| 8.69 ± 2.41 | 8.68 ± 2.33 | |
| 26.95 ± 6.29 | 26.70 ± 6.07 | |
| 22.15 ± 6.05 | 22.04 ± 5.74 | |
| 6.47 ± 2 | 6.74 ± 2.05 | |
| 44.27 ± 28.82 | - | |
| 72.17 ± 41.56 | - |
Data related to the IPFAM dimensions with standardized scores
| 19 | 2.74 ± 0.64 | 2.72 ± 0.61 | |
| 3 | 2.90 ± 0.80 | 2.89 ± 0.78 | |
| 10 | 2.70 ± 0.63 | 2.67 ± 0.61 | |
| 9 | 2.46 ± 0.67 | 2.45 ± 0.64 | |
| 4 | 1.62 ± 0.50 | 1.69 ± 0.51 |
Inter-subscale and subscale – total correlation matrix for test.
| - | |||||
| 0.742 (0.000)* | - | ||||
| 0.957 (0.000)* | 0.670 (0.000)* | - | |||
| 0.925 (0.000)* | 0.637 (0.000)* | 0.851 (0.000)* | - | ||
| -0.107 (0.332) | -0.086 (0.435) | -0.036 (0.742) | -0.016 (0.886) | - |
*: p < 0.01.
Reliability Analysis Cronbach's Alpha.
| 19 | 0.902 | |
| 3 | 0.715 | |
| 10 | 0.796 | |
| 9 | 0.825 | |
| 4 | 0.439 |
Test – retest reliability.
| 0.953 | (0.928–0.969) | |
| 0.843 | (0.767–0.895) | |
| 0.940 | (0.909–0.961) | |
| 0.871 | (0.807–0.914) | |
| 0.787 | (0.690–0.856) |
Construct validity.
| 0.519 (0.000) | |
| -0.532 (0.000) |
Correlation between IPFAM subscales and WeeFIM subscales.
| -0.532 (0.000)* | -0.532 (0.000)* | -0.522 (0.000)* | -0.447 (0.002)* | |
| -0.496 (0.000)* | -0.439 (0.002)* | -0.451 (0.002)* | -0.450 (0.002)* | |
| -0.464 (0.000)* | -0.516 (0.000)* | -0.490 (0.001)* | -0.394 (0.007)* | |
| -0.472 (0.001)* | -0.446 (0.002)* | -0.487 (0.001)* | -0.409 (0.005)* | |
| -0.058(0.695) | 0.017 (0.911) | -0.094 (0.536) | 0.036 (0.814) |
*: p < 0.05