Advertisement

The Keele Assessment of Participation

  • R. Wilkie
Reference work entry

Abstract:

The World Health Organization has proposed  participation restriction to reflect the societal consequences of health conditions. Participation restriction can be multiply determined and represents the outcome of an individual’s ongoing interaction with their environment and with society; it emphasizes the independent causal role of environmental factors in determining functioning and refers to what is actually performed by the individual in real life situations. It is appealing concept for those interested in older populations and the impact of chronic diseases because even when health conditions and activity limitations persist, there may still be potential to maintain participation. Despite its importance, participation restriction is inconsistently represented or absent from the content of many health status instruments and has not been clearly measured in population studies.

This chapter describes the development of the Keele Assessment of Participation (KAP), a self-complete instrument designed to provide estimates of  person-perceived participation restriction in population-based surveys. It specifies a  conceptual model of participation restriction (based on the individual’s perception of  performance of tasks), outlines how the instrument was developed (with the aim of being short and simple for application in epidemiological studies) and how its scale scores were decided (to allow differentiation between large groups in the population). It also describes, and reports the results of the  pre-pilot studies and pilot studies designed to investigate its measurement properties. The KAP performed adequately in  validity and  reliability tests and can be considered as an instrument that is likely to detect and provide sensible estimates of participation restriction in postal surveys.

Keywords

Discriminant Validity Activity Limitation Cognitive Interview Participation Restriction Item Discrimination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

List of Abbreviations:

95% CI

95% confidence intervals

ICF

international classification of functioning, disability and health

IPA

impact on participation and autonomy

κ

 kappa

κw

weighted kappa

KAP

keele assessment of participation

n

number

Norstop

North Staffordshire osteoarthritis project

RNL

reintegration to normal living

WHO

World Health Organization

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study in which this work was undertaken was supported financially by a Program Grant awarded by the Medical Research Council, UK (grant code: G9900220) and by funding secured from the North Staffordshire Primary Care R&D Consortium for NHS service support costs. The author would like to thank Dr George Peat, Dr Elaine Thomas, Dr Helen Hooper and Professor Peter Croft for their input in developing the KAP. Also the administrative and health informatics staff at Keele University’s Primary Care Sciences Research Centre and the doctors, staff and patients of the participating general practice and the rheumatology wards of the Haywood Hospital, North Staffordshire.

References

  1. Abramson ZH, Abramson JH. (1999). Survey Methods in Community Medicine: Epidemiological Research, Programme Evaluation, Clinical Trials. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Cardol M, de Haan RJ, de Jong BA, van den Bos GAM, de Groot IJM. (2001). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 82: 210–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr AJ. (1996). Br J Rheumatol. 35: 921–932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr AJ. (1999). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 7: 230–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapireau F, Colvez A. (1998). Soc Sci Med. 47: 59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ebrahim S. (1997). J Epidemiol Commun Health. 51: 469–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fransen J, Uebelhart D, Stucki G, Langenegger T, Seitz M, Michel BA. (2002). Ann Rheum Dis. 61: 225–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grimby G. Smedby B. (2001). J Rehabil Med. 33: 193–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harker WF, Dawson DR, Boschen KA, Stuss DT. (2002). Int J Rehabil Res. 25: 93–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harwood RH, Prince M, Mann A, Ebrahim S. (1998). Int J Epidemiol. 27: 261–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoehler FK. (2000). J Clin Epidemiol. 53: 499–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Landis JR, Koch GG. (1977). Biometrics. 33: 159–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB, Roberts JS. (1996). Clin Ther. 18: 979–992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Banford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J. (2001). Health Technol Assess. 5(31): 43–101.Google Scholar
  15. McDowell I, Newell C. (1996). Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Moser CA, Kalton G. (1971). Survey Methods in Social Investigation, 2nd ed. Dartmouth Publishing, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  17. Simeonsson RJ, Lollar D, Hollowell J, Adams M. (2000). J Clin Epi. 53: 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Streiner DL, Norman GR. (2003). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Bedirhan Ustun T. (2002). Disabil Rehabil. 24: 281–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sudman S, Bradburn N. (1974). Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Ueda S, Okawa Y. (2003). Disabil Rehabil. 25: 596–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Verbrugge LM, Jette A. (1994). Soc Sci Med. 38: 1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weigl M, Cieza A, Harder M, Geyh S, Amann E, Kostanjsk N, Stucki G. (2003). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 11(7): 519–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilkie R, Peat G, Thomas E, Croft PR. (2004). Arthritis Rheum. 51: 755–762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilkie R, Peat G, Thomas E, Hooper H, Croft PR. (2005). Qual Life Res. 14: 1889–1899.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wood-Dauphinee SL, Opzoomer MA, Williams JI, Marchand B, Spitzer WO. (1988). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 69: 583–590.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Wilkie

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations