Dominique Van de Velde1, Pascal Coorevits2, Lode Sabbe3, Stijn De Baets1, Piet Bracke4, Geert Van Hove5, Staffan Josephsson6, Stephan Ilsbroukx7, Guy Vanderstraeten1,3. 1. 1 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2. 2 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3. 3 Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. 4. 4 Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 5. 5 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Special Needs Education, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 6. 6 Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. 7 National Multiple Sclerosis Centre Melsbroek, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, discriminant validity and responsiveness of the Ghent Participation Scale. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with a test-retest sample. SETTING: Six outpatient rehabilitation centres in Belgium. SUBJECTS: A total of 365 outpatients from eight diagnostic groups. MEASURES: The Ghent Participation Scale, the Impact on Participation and Autonomy, the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation and the Medical outcome study Short Form SF-36. RESULTS: The Ghent Participation Scale was found to have good internal consistency (Cronbach's α between 0.75 and 0.83). At item level, the test-retest reliability was good; weighted kappas ranged between 0.57 and 0.88. On the dimension level intraclass correlation coefficients ranged between 0.80 and 0.90. Evidence for construct validity came from high correlations between the subscales of the Ghent Participation Scale and four subscales of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (range, r = -0.71 to -0.87) and two subscales of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (range, r = 0.54 to 0.72). Standardized response mean ranged between 0.23 and 0.68 and the area under the curve ranged between 68% and 88%. CONCLUSION: The Ghent Participation Scale appears to be a valid and reliable method of assessing participation irrespective of the respondent's health condition. The Ghent Participation Scale is responsive and is able to detect changes over time.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, discriminant validity and responsiveness of the Ghent Participation Scale. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with a test-retest sample. SETTING: Six outpatient rehabilitation centres in Belgium. SUBJECTS: A total of 365 outpatients from eight diagnostic groups. MEASURES: The Ghent Participation Scale, the Impact on Participation and Autonomy, the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation and the Medical outcome study Short Form SF-36. RESULTS: The Ghent Participation Scale was found to have good internal consistency (Cronbach's α between 0.75 and 0.83). At item level, the test-retest reliability was good; weighted kappas ranged between 0.57 and 0.88. On the dimension level intraclass correlation coefficients ranged between 0.80 and 0.90. Evidence for construct validity came from high correlations between the subscales of the Ghent Participation Scale and four subscales of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (range, r = -0.71 to -0.87) and two subscales of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (range, r = 0.54 to 0.72). Standardized response mean ranged between 0.23 and 0.68 and the area under the curve ranged between 68% and 88%. CONCLUSION: The Ghent Participation Scale appears to be a valid and reliable method of assessing participation irrespective of the respondent's health condition. The Ghent Participation Scale is responsive and is able to detect changes over time.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disability and Health; International Classification of Functioning; measure; participation; reliability; validity
Authors: Stijn De Baets; Ellen Cruyt; Patrick Calders; Inge Dewandele; Fransiska Malfait; Guy Vanderstraeten; Geert Van Hove; Dominique van De Velde Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Dominique Van de Velde; Freya De Zutter; Ton Satink; Ursula Costa; Sara Janquart; Daniela Senn; Patricia De Vriendt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Arne H Eide; Dag Ofstad; Marit Støylen; Emil Hansen; Marikken Høiseth Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Marieke Coussens; Birger Destoop; Stijn De Baets; Annemie Desoete; Ann Oostra; Guy Vanderstraeten; Hilde Van Waelvelde; Dominique Van de Velde Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240