Advertisement

Measuring Participation of Rehabilitation Patients: Test-Retest Reliability and Mode of Administration Concordance of the Participation Measure–3 Domains, 4 Dimensions (PM-3D4D)

  • Feng-Hang Chang
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author Feng-Hang Chang, ScD, OTR/L, Graduate Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, College of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wu-Hsing Street, Taipei 11031, Taiwan.
    Affiliations
    Graduate Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, College of Public Health, and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
Published:March 28, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.02.022

      Abstract

      Objective

      To evaluate the test-retest reliability and the concordance between the interviewer-administered version and the self-administered version of a newly developed participation measure, Participation Measure–3 Domains, 4 Dimensions (PM-3D4D).

      Design

      Multicenter observational study.

      Setting

      Outpatient rehabilitation programs.

      Participants

      Rehabilitation outpatients (N=262) participated in the study, including those (n=202) who participated in the test-retest study and those (n=60) who participated in the 2 modes of the administration study.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      The PM-3D4D includes 19 items measuring participation in productivity, social, and community domains across 4 dimensions: diversity of participation, frequency of participation, desire for change, and difficulty in participation.

      Results

      The test-retest reliability was good across domains and dimensions (intraclass correlation coefficients, .76–.96) as well as in neurological and nonneurological groups. The test-retest reliability was also mostly good at the item level. A high concordance was found between the 2 administration modes (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.96–1.00).

      Conclusions

      The study results lend support to the use of the PM-3D4D to reliably assess participation of rehabilitation patients. The high concordance between the 2 administration modes suggests the potential use of the instrument in population-based research.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient), PM-3D4D (Participation Measure–3 Domains, 4 Dimensions)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Wade D.T.
        • de Jong B.A.
        Recent advances in rehabilitation.
        BMJ. 2000; 320: 1385-1388
        • Chang F.H.
        • Coster W.J.
        • Helfrich C.A.
        Community participation measures for people with disabilities: a systematic review of content from an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health perspective.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 771-781
        • Salzer M.S.
        • Brusilovskiy E.
        • Prvu-Bettger J.
        • Kottsieper P.
        Measuring community participation of adults with psychiatric disabilities: reliability of two modes of data collection.
        Rehabil Psychol. 2014; 59: 211-219
        • Chang F.H.
        • Liou T.H.
        • Ni P.
        • Chang K.H.
        • Lai C.H.
        Development of the Participation Measure–3 Domains, 4 Dimensions (PM-3D4D): a new outcome measure for rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98: 286-294
        • Post M.W.
        What to do with “moderate” reliability and validity coefficients?.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 97: 1051-1052
        • Portney L.G.
        • Watkins M.P.
        Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice.
        Prentice Hall, New Jersey2008
        • Brown M.
        • Dijkers M.P.
        • Gordon W.A.
        • Ashman T.
        • Charatz H.
        • Cheng Z.
        Participation Objective, Participation Subjective: a measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives.
        J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004; 19: 459-481
        • Gandek B.
        • Sinclair S.J.
        • Jette A.M.
        • Ware Jr., J.E.
        Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the Participation Measure for Post-Acute Care (PM-PAC).
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 86: 57-71
        • Puhan M.A.
        • Ahuja A.
        • Van Natta M.L.
        • Ackatz L.E.
        • Meinert C.
        Interviewer versus self-administered health-related quality of life questionnaires—does it matter?.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9: 30
        • Cheung Y.B.
        • Goh C.
        • Thumboo J.
        • Khoo K.S.
        • Wee J.
        Quality of life scores differed according to mode of administration in a review of three major oncology questionnaires.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 185-191