TY - JOUR
T1 - Crosswalk of participation self-report measures for aphasia to the ICF: What content is being measured?
AU - Brandenburg, Caitlin
AU - Worrall, Linda
AU - Rodriguez, Amy
AU - Bagraith, Karl
PY - 2015/6/1
Y1 - 2015/6/1
N2 - Purpose: Community participation is of importance to people with aphasia, who are at risk of becoming socially isolated. This study investigates the content of measures of community and social participation for this population by crosswalking items to the ICF. This will evaluate: (1) to what extent the included assessments assessed participation only, (2) what content appeared most frequently and (3) which response formats were utilised. Methods: Instruments were identified from four systematic reviews and a literature search. 111 instruments that were self-reported, developed for adults and published in English were identified. Items were linked to ICF domains, and third-level categories of the Activities and Participation chapter. Results: Ninety instruments (2426 items) were included. Of these, 29 instruments contained over 50 participation items. The most frequently included participation categories in this subset were education, paid employment, recreation, socialising, being a carer, relating with friends, family and spouses, volunteer work, managing finances, community life, civic duties, human rights and religion/spirituality. Self-care, mobility and domestic life concepts were also frequently reported. Commonly used response formats were restriction, frequency and satisfaction. Conclusions: Few instruments solely assessed participation according to our operationalisation. This study provides a list of possible measures for use in assessing participation.
AB - Purpose: Community participation is of importance to people with aphasia, who are at risk of becoming socially isolated. This study investigates the content of measures of community and social participation for this population by crosswalking items to the ICF. This will evaluate: (1) to what extent the included assessments assessed participation only, (2) what content appeared most frequently and (3) which response formats were utilised. Methods: Instruments were identified from four systematic reviews and a literature search. 111 instruments that were self-reported, developed for adults and published in English were identified. Items were linked to ICF domains, and third-level categories of the Activities and Participation chapter. Results: Ninety instruments (2426 items) were included. Of these, 29 instruments contained over 50 participation items. The most frequently included participation categories in this subset were education, paid employment, recreation, socialising, being a carer, relating with friends, family and spouses, volunteer work, managing finances, community life, civic duties, human rights and religion/spirituality. Self-care, mobility and domestic life concepts were also frequently reported. Commonly used response formats were restriction, frequency and satisfaction. Conclusions: Few instruments solely assessed participation according to our operationalisation. This study provides a list of possible measures for use in assessing participation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929242069&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3109/09638288.2014.955132
DO - 10.3109/09638288.2014.955132
M3 - Review article
C2 - 25163830
AN - SCOPUS:84929242069
SN - 0963-8288
VL - 37
SP - 1113
EP - 1124
JO - Disability and Rehabilitation
JF - Disability and Rehabilitation
IS - 13
ER -