Megan N Houston1, Johanna M Hoch2, Bonnie L Van Lunen2, Matthew C Hoch2. 1. Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, A.T. Still University, Mesa, AZ, USA. mnhouston@atsu.edu. 2. School of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Disablement in the Physically Active scale (DPA) is a generic patient-reported outcome designed to evaluate constructs of disability in physically active populations. The purpose of this study was to analyze the DPA scale structure for summary components. METHODS: Four hundred and fifty-six collegiate athletes completed a demographic form and the DPA. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted with oblique rotation. Factors with eigenvalues >1 that explained >5 % of the variance were retained. RESULTS: The PCA revealed a two-factor structure consistent with paradigms used to develop the original DPA. Items 1-12 loaded on Factors 1 and Items 13-16 loaded on Factor 2. Items 1-12 pertain to impairment, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Items 13-16 address psychosocial and emotional well-being. Consideration of item content suggested Factor 1 concerned physical function, while Factor 2 concerned mental well-being. Thus, items clustered around Factor 1 and 2 were identified as physical (DPA-PSC) and mental (DPA-MSC) summary components, respectively. Together, the factors accounted for 65.1 % of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: The PCA revealed a two-factor structure for the DPA that resulted in DPA-PSC and DPA-MSC. Analyzing the DPA as separate constructs may provide distinct information that could help to prescribe treatment and rehabilitation strategies.
PURPOSE: The Disablement in the Physically Active scale (DPA) is a generic patient-reported outcome designed to evaluate constructs of disability in physically active populations. The purpose of this study was to analyze the DPA scale structure for summary components. METHODS: Four hundred and fifty-six collegiate athletes completed a demographic form and the DPA. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted with oblique rotation. Factors with eigenvalues >1 that explained >5 % of the variance were retained. RESULTS: The PCA revealed a two-factor structure consistent with paradigms used to develop the original DPA. Items 1-12 loaded on Factors 1 and Items 13-16 loaded on Factor 2. Items 1-12 pertain to impairment, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Items 13-16 address psychosocial and emotional well-being. Consideration of item content suggested Factor 1 concerned physical function, while Factor 2 concerned mental well-being. Thus, items clustered around Factor 1 and 2 were identified as physical (DPA-PSC) and mental (DPA-MSC) summary components, respectively. Together, the factors accounted for 65.1 % of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: The PCA revealed a two-factor structure for the DPA that resulted in DPA-PSC and DPA-MSC. Analyzing the DPA as separate constructs may provide distinct information that could help to prescribe treatment and rehabilitation strategies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disablement; Patient-centered care; Patient-reported outcomes; Quality of life
Authors: Alison R Snyder; John T Parsons; Tamara C Valovich McLeod; R Curtis Bay; Lori A Michener; Eric L Sauers Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: G Russell Huffman; Jung Park; Chris Roser-Jones; Brian J Sennett; Gautum Yagnik; David Webner Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 5.284