Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 2657–2662 | Cite as

The development of summary components for the Disablement in the Physically Active scale in collegiate athletes

  • Megan N. Houston
  • Johanna M. Hoch
  • Bonnie L. Van Lunen
  • Matthew C. Hoch
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

The Disablement in the Physically Active scale (DPA) is a generic patient-reported outcome designed to evaluate constructs of disability in physically active populations. The purpose of this study was to analyze the DPA scale structure for summary components.

Methods

Four hundred and fifty-six collegiate athletes completed a demographic form and the DPA. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted with oblique rotation. Factors with eigenvalues >1 that explained >5 % of the variance were retained.

Results

The PCA revealed a two-factor structure consistent with paradigms used to develop the original DPA. Items 1–12 loaded on Factors 1 and Items 13–16 loaded on Factor 2. Items 1–12 pertain to impairment, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Items 13–16 address psychosocial and emotional well-being. Consideration of item content suggested Factor 1 concerned physical function, while Factor 2 concerned mental well-being. Thus, items clustered around Factor 1 and 2 were identified as physical (DPA–PSC) and mental (DPA–MSC) summary components, respectively. Together, the factors accounted for 65.1 % of the variance.

Conclusions

The PCA revealed a two-factor structure for the DPA that resulted in DPA–PSC and DPA–MSC. Analyzing the DPA as separate constructs may provide distinct information that could help to prescribe treatment and rehabilitation strategies.

Keywords

Quality of life Patient-reported outcomes Patient-centered care Disablement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The investigators would like to acknowledge and thank Stefani Masterton, MSEd, ATC and Nicole Emanato, MS, ATC, as well as, the other athletic trainers for their efforts in facilitating and organizing data collection sessions for this investigation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Parsons, J. T., & Snyder, A. R. (2011). Health-related quality of life as a primary clinical outcome in sport rehabilitation. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 20(1), 17–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Snyder, A. R., Parsons, J. T., Valovich McLeod, T. C., Curtis Bay, R., Michener, L. A., & Sauers, E. L. (2008). Using disablement models and clinical outcomes assessment to enable evidence-based athletic training practice, part I: Disablement models. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(4), 428–436.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312(7023), 71–72.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vela, L. I., & Denegar, C. (2010). Transient disablement in the physically active with musculoskeletal injuries, part I: A descriptive model. Journal of Athletic Training, 45(6), 615–629.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vela, L. I., & Denegar, C. R. (2010). The disablement in the physically active scale, part II: The psychometric properties of an outcomes scale for musculoskeletal injuries. Journal of Athletic Training, 45(6), 630–641.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferketich, S. (1991). Focus on psychometrics: Aspects of item analysis. Research in Nursing and Health, 14(2), 165–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huffman, G. R., Park, J., Roser-Jones, C., Sennett, B. J., Yagnik, G., & Webner, D. (2008). Normative SF-36 values in competing NCAA intercollegiate athletes differ from values in the general population. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American, 90(3), 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McAllister, D. R., Motamedi, A. R., Hame, S. L., Shapiro, M. S., & Dorey, F. J. (2001). Quality of life assessment in elite collegiate athletes. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 29(6), 806–810.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan N. Houston
    • 1
  • Johanna M. Hoch
    • 2
  • Bonnie L. Van Lunen
    • 2
  • Matthew C. Hoch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Interdisciplinary Health SciencesA.T. Still UniversityMesaUSA
  2. 2.School of Physical Therapy & Athletic TrainingOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations