a Swiss Paraplegic Research, ICF Unit , Nottwil , Switzerland.
b Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy , University of Lucerne , Lucerne , Switzerland.
Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Mar;41(5):584-600. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1198433. Epub 2016 Jul 14.
Existing instruments measuring participation may vary with respect to various aspects. This study aimed to examine the comparability of existing instruments measuring participation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by considering aspects of content, the perspective adopted and the categorization of response options.
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify instruments that have been commonly used to measure participation. Concepts of identified instruments were then linked to the ICF following the refined ICF Linking Rules. Aspects of content, perspective adopted and categorization of response options were documented.
Out of 315 instruments identified in the full-text screening, 41 instruments were included. Concepts of six instruments were linked entirely to the ICF component Activities and Participation; of 10 instruments still 80% of their concepts. A descriptive perspective was adopted in most items across instruments (75%), mostly in combination with an intensity rating. An appraisal perspective was found in 18% and questions from a need or dependency perspective were least frequent (7%).
Accounting for aspects of content, perspective and categorization of responses in the linking of instruments to the ICF provides detailed information for the comparison of instruments and guidance on narrowing down the choices of suitable instruments from a content point of view. Implications for Rehabilitation For clinicians and researchers who need to identify a specific instrument for a given purpose, the findings of this review can serve as a screening tool for instruments measuring participation in terms of the following: • Their content covered based on the ICF. • The perspective adopted in the instrument (e.g., descriptive, need/dependency or appraisal). • The categorization of their response options (e.g., intensity or frequency).
现有的参与度评估工具在诸多方面可能存在差异。本研究旨在根据《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》（ICF），从内容、采用的视角和反应选项的分类等方面，来检验现有的参与度评估工具的可比性。
系统地回顾了文献，以确定常用于测量参与度的工具。然后根据细化后的 ICF 链接规则，将确定工具的概念与 ICF 联系起来。记录了内容、采用的视角和反应选项的分类等方面的内容。
在全文筛选中，共确定了 315 种工具，其中 41 种工具被纳入。有 6 种工具的概念完全与 ICF 组件“活动和参与”相关联；有 10 种工具仍有 80%的概念与之相关联。大多数工具（75%）的项目采用了描述性视角，主要与强度评分相结合。18%的工具采用了评估性视角，而从需求或依存性视角提出的问题则最少（7%）。
在将工具与 ICF 进行链接时，考虑到内容、视角和反应选项的分类，可以为工具的比较提供详细的信息，并从内容角度指导缩小合适工具的选择范围。
对于需要根据特定目的确定特定工具的临床医生和研究人员来说，本研究的结果可作为一种筛选工具，用于评估参与度的工具，可从以下方面进行筛选：
基于 ICF 的涵盖内容。
工具中采用的视角（例如，描述性、需求/依存性或评估性）。
反应选项的分类（例如，强度或频率）。
