Sadna Balton1, Patrik Arvidsson2,3, Mats Granlund3, Karina Huus3, Shakila Dada1. 1. Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 2. CHILD, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden. 3. Centre for Research & Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Picture My Participation (PmP) is a promising instrument for measuring the participation in everyday situations of children with intellectual disability (ID), particularly in low- and middle-income countries. AIM: To explore test-retest reliability of PmP by comparing two repeated measurements of children with ID in an urban context in South Africa. METHODS: A picture-supported interview with 31 children with ID, aged 7-17 years, was conducted twice, two weeks apart. The children rated their participation, operationalised as attendance and involvement, in 20 everyday activities. Analyses were completed for total scores, for the four subcomponents and at item level. RESULTS: Test-retest agreement at an item level for both attendance and involvement showed slight/fair agreement for most activities (Kappa = 0.01-0.40), and moderate agreement for some activities (Kappa = 0.41-0.60). Moderate agreement was shown for the total scale and at component level (ICC = 0.5-0.75), except for (firstly) attendance of and involvement in 'Family Activities' (ICC = 0.26 for attendance, 0.33 for involvement), and (secondly) involvement in 'Personal Activities' (ICC = 0.33). CONCLUSION: The result indicates that PmP can reliably be used at component level and as a screening tool for intervention planning to identify participation and participation restrictions in children with ID.
BACKGROUND: Picture My Participation (PmP) is a promising instrument for measuring the participation in everyday situations of children with intellectual disability (ID), particularly in low- and middle-income countries. AIM: To explore test-retest reliability of PmP by comparing two repeated measurements of children with ID in an urban context in South Africa. METHODS: A picture-supported interview with 31 children with ID, aged 7-17 years, was conducted twice, two weeks apart. The children rated their participation, operationalised as attendance and involvement, in 20 everyday activities. Analyses were completed for total scores, for the four subcomponents and at item level. RESULTS: Test-retest agreement at an item level for both attendance and involvement showed slight/fair agreement for most activities (Kappa = 0.01-0.40), and moderate agreement for some activities (Kappa = 0.41-0.60). Moderate agreement was shown for the total scale and at component level (ICC = 0.5-0.75), except for (firstly) attendance of and involvement in 'Family Activities' (ICC = 0.26 for attendance, 0.33 for involvement), and (secondly) involvement in 'Personal Activities' (ICC = 0.33). CONCLUSION: The result indicates that PmP can reliably be used at component level and as a screening tool for intervention planning to identify participation and participation restrictions in children with ID.