Literature DB >> 20801281

Issues affecting the selection of participation measurement in outcomes research and clinical trials.

Gale G Whiteneck1.   

Abstract

The ever-growing number of participation measures without consensus on which is best makes it difficult to determine which measure to use in rehabilitation research and clinical trials. In an effort to address issues affecting the selection of a participation measure for a specific research purpose, this article (1) outlines the types and characteristics of participation measures, (2) enumerates various uses of participation measures in disability and rehabilitation research, (3) discusses appropriate matching of the type of participation measure with the research task, and (4) offers recommendations for future participation research. Participation instruments vary in terms of their degree of participation specificity, the conceptual model that underlies their development, whether they include multiple domains or take a more global approach, the extent to which they are objective versus subjective, whether they use general population norms, who is the respondent, the method of item and scale development, and their psychometric properties. Participation measures are used in individual and population assessments, observational research, and interventional research. Selection of a participation measure for use in a specific study requires an understanding of the characteristics of available tools and the nature of the research design, but most importantly, it requires matching the instrument to the specific research question or hypothesis. Instruments assessing participation are currently appropriate as secondary outcomes in trials evaluating interventions targeting activity limitation, and they will become appropriate as primary outcomes when interventions are tested that target participation directly. It will be easier to apply participation measures appropriately to their many research uses once substantial progress is made in obtaining better participation measurements and consensus is reached about the best tools. Copyright 2010 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20801281     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  6 in total

1.  The PROMIS satisfaction with social participation measures demonstrated responsiveness in diverse clinical populations.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Hahn; Jennifer L Beaumont; Paul A Pilkonis; Sofia F Garcia; Susan Magasi; Darren A DeWalt; David Cella
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-02-27       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Measuring social function in diverse cancer populations: Evaluation of measurement equivalence of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities short form.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Hahn; Michael A Kallen; Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Carol M Moinpour; Mildred Ramirez; David Cella; Jeanne A Teresi
Journal:  Psychol Test Assess Model       Date:  2016-06-27

3.  Development and psychometric characteristics of the SCI-QOL Ability to Participate and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities item banks and short forms.

Authors:  Allen W Heinemann; Pamela A Kisala; Elizabeth A Hahn; David S Tulsky
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.985

4.  Rasch analysis of the London Handicap Scale in stroke patients: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Eun-Young Park; Yoo-Im Choi
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 4.262

Review 5.  Scoping Review: The Trajectory of Recovery of Participation Outcomes following Stroke.

Authors:  Batya Engel-Yeger; Tamara Tse; Naomi Josman; Carolyn Baum; Leeanne M Carey
Journal:  Behav Neurol       Date:  2018-09-09       Impact factor: 3.342

6.  Quality of life among individuals with rugby-related spinal cord injuries in South Africa: a descriptive cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Marelise Badenhorst; James Craig Brown; Mike I Lambert; Willem Van Mechelen; Evert Verhagen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.