Paula W Rushton1, R Lee Kirby, William C Miller. 1. Rehabilitation Sciences Graduate Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. paula.rushton@umontreal.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that the total scores of the Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) version 4.1, an observer-rated scale of wheelchair performance, and the Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (WST-Q) version 4.1, a self-report of wheelchair skills, are highly correlated. We also anticipate that the WST-Q scores will be slightly higher, indicating an overestimation of capacity to perform wheelchair skills as compared with actual capacity. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, within-subjects comparison design. SETTING: Three Canadian cities. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of community-dwelling, experienced manual wheelchair users (N=89) ranging in age from 21 to 94 years. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed the subjective WST-Q version 4.1 followed by the objective WST version 4.1 in 1 testing session. RESULTS: The mean ± SD total percentage scores for WST and WST-Q were 79.5%±14.4% and 83.0%±12.1% for capacity and 99.4%±1.5% and 98.9%±2.5% for safety, respectively. The correlations between the WST and WST-Q scores were ρ=.89 (P=.000) for capacity and ρ=.12 (P=.251) for safety. WST-Q total score mean differences were an average of 3.5%±6.5% higher than WST scores for capacity (P=.000) and .52%±2.8% lower for safety (P=.343). For the 32 individual skills, the percentage agreement between the WST and WST-Q scores ranged from 82% to 100% for capacity and from 90% to 100% for safety. CONCLUSION: WST and WST-Q version 4.1 capacity scores are highly correlated although the WST-Q scores are slightly higher. Decisions on which of these assessments to use can safely be based on the circumstances and objectives of the evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that the total scores of the Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) version 4.1, an observer-rated scale of wheelchair performance, and the Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (WST-Q) version 4.1, a self-report of wheelchair skills, are highly correlated. We also anticipate that the WST-Q scores will be slightly higher, indicating an overestimation of capacity to perform wheelchair skills as compared with actual capacity. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, within-subjects comparison design. SETTING: Three Canadian cities. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of community-dwelling, experienced manual wheelchair users (N=89) ranging in age from 21 to 94 years. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed the subjective WST-Q version 4.1 followed by the objective WST version 4.1 in 1 testing session. RESULTS: The mean ± SD total percentage scores for WST and WST-Q were 79.5%±14.4% and 83.0%±12.1% for capacity and 99.4%±1.5% and 98.9%±2.5% for safety, respectively. The correlations between the WST and WST-Q scores were ρ=.89 (P=.000) for capacity and ρ=.12 (P=.251) for safety. WST-Q total score mean differences were an average of 3.5%±6.5% higher than WST scores for capacity (P=.000) and .52%±2.8% lower for safety (P=.343). For the 32 individual skills, the percentage agreement between the WST and WST-Q scores ranged from 82% to 100% for capacity and from 90% to 100% for safety. CONCLUSION: WST and WST-Q version 4.1 capacity scores are highly correlated although the WST-Q scores are slightly higher. Decisions on which of these assessments to use can safely be based on the circumstances and objectives of the evaluation.
Authors: R Lee Kirby; Janneke Swuste; Debbie J Dupuis; Donald A MacLeod; Randi Monroe Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Olga J E Kilkens; Marcel W M Post; Annet J Dallmeijer; Henk A M Seelen; Lucas H V van der Woude Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: Anna L Coolen; R Lee Kirby; Jennifer Landry; Angela H MacPhee; Debbie Dupuis; Cher Smith; Krista L Best; Diane E Mackenzie; Donald A MacLeod Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Angela H MacPhee; R Lee Kirby; Anna L Coolen; Cher Smith; Donald A MacLeod; Debbie J Dupuis Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: François Routhier; R Lee Kirby; Louise Demers; Malgorzata Depa; Kara Thompson Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: R Lee Kirby; Debbie J Dupuis; Angela H Macphee; Anna L Coolen; Cher Smith; Krista L Best; Allison M Newton; Anita D Mountain; Donald A Macleod; James P Bonaparte Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: A Cecile J W Janssens; Pieter A van Doorn; Josien B de Boer; Frans G A van der Meché; Jan Passchier; Rogier Q Hintzen Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: R Lee Kirby; William C Miller; Francois Routhier; Louise Demers; Alex Mihailidis; Jan Miller Polgar; Paula W Rushton; Laura Titus; Cher Smith; Mike McAllister; Chris Theriault; Kara Thompson; Bonita Sawatzky Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Carol Y Scovil; Karen Yoshida; Sarah Oosman; Anita Kaiser; Catharine Craven; Susan Jaglal; Kristin E Musselman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 2.692