Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, School of Health and Rehabilitation Science, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Clin Rehabil. 2022 Feb;36(2):263-271. doi: 10.1177/02692155211040930. Epub 2021 Aug 20.
This study examined the construct validity of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators.
We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study of rehabilitation outcomes.
The parent study included 604 community-dwelling adults with chronic traumatic brain injury, stroke, or spinal cord injury. The sample had a mean age of 64.1 years, was two-thirds male, and included a high proportion of racial minorities ( = 250, 41.4%).
The Enfranchisement scale contains two subscales: the Control subscale and the Importance subscale. We examined correlations between each Enfranchisement subscale and measures of participation, environment, and impairments. The current analyses included cases with at least 80% of items completed on each subscale (Control subscale: = 391; Importance subscale: = 219). Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation.
The sample demonstrated high scores, indicating poor enfranchisement (Control subscale: = 51.7; Importance subscale: = 43.0). Both subscales were most strongly associated with measures of participation (Control subscale: = 0.56; Importance subscale: = 0.52), and least strongly associated with measures of cognition (Control subscale: = 0.03; Importance subscale: = 0.03). The Importance subscale was closely associated with depression ( = 0.54), and systems, services, and policies ( = 0.50). Both subscales were associated with social attitudes (Control subscale: = 0.44; Importance subscale: = 0.44) and social support (Control subscale: = 0.49; Importance subscale: = 0.41).
We found evidence of convergent validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of participation, and discriminant validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of disability-related impairments. The analyses also revealed the importance of the environment to enfranchisement outcomes.
本研究检验了社区参与指标赋权量表的结构效度。
我们对康复结果的横断面研究中收集的数据进行了二次分析。
母研究包括 604 名居住在社区的慢性创伤性脑损伤、中风或脊髓损伤成年人。该样本的平均年龄为 64.1 岁，三分之二为男性，包括大量少数族裔（=250，41.4%）。
赋权量表包含两个分量表：控制分量表和重要性分量表。我们检验了每个赋权分量表与参与、环境和损伤测量之间的相关性。当前分析包括每个分量表至少完成 80%项目的病例（控制分量表：=391；重要性分量表：=219）。使用多重插补法对缺失值进行插补。
样本表现出较高的分数，表明赋权程度较低（控制分量表：=51.7；重要性分量表：=43.0）。两个分量表与参与测量的相关性最强（控制分量表：=0.56；重要性分量表：=0.52），与认知测量的相关性最弱（控制分量表：=0.03；重要性分量表：=0.03）。重要性分量表与抑郁（=0.54）和系统、服务和政策（=0.50）密切相关。两个分量表与社会态度（控制分量表：=0.44；重要性分量表：=0.44）和社会支持（控制分量表：=0.49；重要性分量表：=0.41）相关。
我们发现赋权量表与参与测量之间存在聚合效度的证据，与残疾相关损伤测量之间存在区分效度的证据。分析还揭示了环境对赋权结果的重要性。
