Goujon Nicolas, Devine Alexandra, Baker Sally M, Sprunt Beth, Edmonds Tanya J, Booth Jennifer K, Keeffe Jill E
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne , East Melbourne, VIC , Australia and.
Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(10):804-12. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2013.821178. Epub 2013 Aug 9.
A review of existing measurement instruments was conducted to examine their suitability to measure disability prevalence and assess quality of life, protection of disability rights and community participation by people with disabilities, specifically within the context of development programs in low and middle-income countries.
From a search of PubMed and the grey literature, potentially relevant measurement instruments were identified and examined for their content and psychometric properties, where possible. Criteria for inclusion were: based on the WHO's International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF), used quantitative methods, suitable for population-based studies of disability inclusive development in English and published after 1990. Characteristics of existing instruments were analysed according to components of the ICF and quality of life domains.
Ten instruments were identified and reviewed according to the criteria listed above. Each version of instruments was analysed separately. Only three instruments included a component on quality of life. Domains from the ICF that were addressed by some but not all instruments included the environment, technology and communication.
The measurement instruments reviewed covered the range of elements required to measure disability-inclusion within development contexts. However no single measurement instrument has the capacity to measure both disability prevalence and changes in quality of life according to contemporary disability paradigms. The review of measurement instruments supports the need for developing an instrument specifically intended to measure disability inclusive practice within development programs. Implications for Rehabilitation Surveys and tools are needed to plan disability inclusive development. Existing measurement tools to determine prevalence of disability, wellbeing, rights and access to the community were reviewed. No single validated tool exists for population-based studies, uses quantitative methods and the components of the ICF to measure prevalence of disability, well-being of people with disability and their access to their communities. A measurement tool that reflects the UNCRPD and addresses all components of the ICF is needed to assist in disability inclusive development, especially in low and mid resource countries.
对现有测量工具进行综述，以检验其在测量残疾患病率、评估生活质量、保护残疾人权利以及残疾人社区参与方面的适用性，特别是在低收入和中等收入国家的发展项目背景下。
通过检索PubMed和灰色文献，识别出潜在相关的测量工具，并尽可能检查其内容和心理测量特性。纳入标准为：基于世界卫生组织的《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》（ICF），采用定量方法，适用于以人群为基础的残疾包容性发展研究，英文发表且于1990年后出版。根据ICF的组成部分和生活质量领域分析现有工具的特征。
根据上述标准识别并综述了10种工具。每种工具的不同版本分别进行分析。只有三种工具包含生活质量方面的内容。部分但并非所有工具涉及的ICF领域包括环境、技术和沟通。
所综述的测量工具涵盖了在发展背景下测量残疾包容性所需的一系列要素。然而，没有单一的测量工具能够根据当代残疾范式同时测量残疾患病率和生活质量变化。对测量工具的综述支持开发一种专门用于测量发展项目中残疾包容性实践的工具的必要性。康复调查和工具对于规划残疾包容性发展具有重要意义。对用于确定残疾患病率、福祉、权利和社区参与情况的现有测量工具进行了综述。不存在适用于以人群为基础的研究、采用定量方法并运用ICF的组成部分来测量残疾患病率、残疾人福祉及其社区参与情况的单一经过验证的工具。需要一种反映《联合国残疾人权利公约》并涵盖ICF所有组成部分的测量工具，以协助实现残疾包容性发展，特别是在资源有限的低收入和中等收入国家。
