Allen W Heinemann1, Ana Miskovic2, Patrick Semik2, Alex Wong3, Jessica Dashner3, Carolyn Baum4, Susan Magasi5, Joy Hammel6, David S Tulsky7, Sofia F Garcia8, Sara Jerousek2, Jin-Shei Lai9, Noelle E Carlozzi10, David B Gray11. 1. Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: a-heinemann@northwestern.edu. 2. Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3. Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO; Department of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO. 4. Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO; Department of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO; Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO. 5. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. 6. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL; Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. 7. The Center for Assessment Research and Translation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. 8. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 9. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 10. Center for Clinical Outcomes Development and Application, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 11. Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the unique and overlapping content of the newly developed Environmental Factors Item Banks (EFIB) and 7 legacy environmental factor instruments, and to evaluate the EFIB's construct validity by examining associations with legacy instruments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational cohort. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of community-dwelling adults with stroke, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury (N=568). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EFIB covering domains of the built and natural environment; systems, services, and policies; social environment; and access to information and technology; the Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF) short form; the Facilitators and Barriers Survey/Mobility (FABS/M) short form; the Home and Community Environment Instrument (HACE); the Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE) short form; and 3 of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System's (PROMIS) Quality of Social Support measures. RESULTS: The EFIB and legacy instruments assess most of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) environmental factors chapters, including chapter 1 (products and technology; 75 items corresponding to 11 codes), chapter 2 (natural environment and human-made changes; 31 items corresponding to 7 codes), chapter 3 (support and relationships; 74 items corresponding to 7 codes), chapter 4 (attitudes; 83 items corresponding to 8 codes), and chapter 5 (services, systems, and policies; 72 items corresponding to 16 codes). Construct validity is provided by moderate correlations between EFIB measures and the CHIEF, MQE barriers, HACE technology mobility, FABS/M community built features, and PROMIS item banks and by small correlations with other legacy instruments. Only 5 of the 66 legacy instrument correlation coefficients are moderate, suggesting they measure unique aspects of the environment, whereas all intra-EFIB correlations were at least moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The EFIB measures provide a brief and focused assessment of ICF environmental factor chapters. The pattern of correlations with legacy instruments provides initial evidence of construct validity. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: To describe the unique and overlapping content of the newly developed Environmental Factors Item Banks (EFIB) and 7 legacy environmental factor instruments, and to evaluate the EFIB's construct validity by examining associations with legacy instruments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational cohort. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of community-dwelling adults with stroke, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury (N=568). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EFIB covering domains of the built and natural environment; systems, services, and policies; social environment; and access to information and technology; the Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF) short form; the Facilitators and Barriers Survey/Mobility (FABS/M) short form; the Home and Community Environment Instrument (HACE); the Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE) short form; and 3 of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System's (PROMIS) Quality of Social Support measures. RESULTS: The EFIB and legacy instruments assess most of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) environmental factors chapters, including chapter 1 (products and technology; 75 items corresponding to 11 codes), chapter 2 (natural environment and human-made changes; 31 items corresponding to 7 codes), chapter 3 (support and relationships; 74 items corresponding to 7 codes), chapter 4 (attitudes; 83 items corresponding to 8 codes), and chapter 5 (services, systems, and policies; 72 items corresponding to 16 codes). Construct validity is provided by moderate correlations between EFIB measures and the CHIEF, MQE barriers, HACE technology mobility, FABS/M community built features, and PROMIS item banks and by small correlations with other legacy instruments. Only 5 of the 66 legacy instrument correlation coefficients are moderate, suggesting they measure unique aspects of the environment, whereas all intra-EFIB correlations were at least moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The EFIB measures provide a brief and focused assessment of ICF environmental factor chapters. The pattern of correlations with legacy instruments provides initial evidence of construct validity. Copyright Â
Authors: Alex W K Wong; Sheryl Ng; Jessica Dashner; M Carolyn Baum; Joy Hammel; Susan Magasi; Jin-Shei Lai; Noelle E Carlozzi; David S Tulsky; Ana Miskovic; Arielle Goldsmith; Allen W Heinemann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kajal Patel; Sofia Straudi; Ng Yee Sien; Nora Fayed; John L Melvin; Manoj Sivan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-05 Impact factor: 3.390