Psychometric properties of the client-centred rehabilitation questionnaire-is derived from a large and varied group of rehabilitation users

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of participants (N = 499).

	Number	(%)
Age
<39	111	22.2
40–54	151	30.3
55–64	119	23.8
65>	107	21.4
Missing	11	2.2
Gender
Women	294	58.9
Men	198	39.7
Missing	7	1.4
Residence
Capital area	305	61.1
Outside of capital	187	37.5
Missing	7	1.4
Weeks in rehabilitation
≤4	181	36.3
5–6	181	36.3
≥7	123	24.6
Missing	14	2.8
Health issue – self reported^a
Musculoskeletal	276	56.3
Cardiac and/or pulmonary	189	38.6
Mental	133	27.1
Obesity	130	26.5
Central nervous system	57	11.6
Cancer or immune system	28	5.7
Perception	18	3.7
Other	56	11.4
Missing	9	1.8

^aParticipants reported more than one issue.

Table 2. Factor loading reliability of the CCRQ-is after varimax rotation.

Questions	Component				α	Ω	Subscales
	1	2	3	4
28. The professionals tried to make me feel good.	.709	.287	.167	.106
30. The professionals in my team worked well together.	.692	.248	.224	.096
20. I received the information I needed when I asked for it.	.673	.24	0.23	.117
26. The professionals showed manner that made it easier for me to express my feelings and state of mind.	.656	.252	.229	.15
12. I was met with respect and consideration	.653	.404	.104	.05
17. I knew whom to talk to if I had a problem or had any questions during the rehabilitation.	.594	.327	.204	.093
29. The professionals acknowledged my emotional needs (such as worries. fears and anxieties) and took them seriously.	.575	254	.282	.098	0.91	0.91	Respect and attentiveness
21. I was taught what I needed to know to cope with my illness at home.	.521	.125	.323	.159
14. The professionals considered my goals and priorities to be very important.	.52	.253	.2	.096
19. I was encouraged to participate in setting goals.	.498	0	.219	-.001
15. My rehabilitation plan was explained to me in a way that I understood.	.492	.201	.344	.167
18. I was given a fair amount of time to rest.	.456	.244	.161	.248
7. The professionals treated my pain as much as they possibly could.	.341	.607	.076	.159
13. The professionals took note of my descriptions of pain.	.428	.537	.063	.098
5. The professionals consulted with me and took my needs into account when creating a special program (schedule) for me.	.11	.529	.394	.119
8. All the services I received on site were organized according to my personal needs.	.425	.514	.26	.151	0.69	0.70	Responsiveness to needs and preferences
4. The professionals treated me as a person and not as every other case.	.486	.504	.041	.069
1. The professionals and I decided together what could help me.	.199	.409	.375	.045
6. I did not have to repeat the same information for different professionals.	.272	.394	.126	.184
24. The different aspects of rehabilitation were well explained to me.	.402	.075	.619	.196
27. I was told what to expect when I got home.	.392	.07	.584	.225
2. I was informed on a regular basis about the progress of my affairs.	.208	.436	.474	.155
16. The professionals and I talked about how I was doing in the rehabilitation and made changes if needed.	.438	.276	.457	.182	0.74	0.75	Eduction and enablement
23. I was told whom I can contact if a problem arises after I am discharged.	.295	.126	.445	.309
9. The professionals informed me about services and resources in my local community.	.191	.203	.374	.204
10. I achieved the outcome I had expected in the rehabilitation.	.299	.184	.360	.258
31. The professionals only gave me information that I was ready to receive.	.058	.046	.175	.114
11. My significant others received instruction and information from the professionals (with my consent).	.106	.127	.177	.808
3. The professionals gave my significant others the support they needed.	.084	.183	.183	.807
22. The attitude of professionals towards my significant others reflected respect for them.	.138	.073	.089	.708	0.85	0.85	Interaction with significant others
25. My significant others were invited to participate in the rehabilitation as much as I wanted.	.037	.056	.304	.591

α = Cronbach’s alpha.

Ω = Mc Donalds’s Omega.

Loadings in bold represent questions that loaded on each component.

Questions nr. 8,4,1,2, 16 and 10 were removed because of cross-loading to other factors. Question 31 was removed because of lack of loading.

Please note that the questions were back-translated from Icelandic to English and some language nuances may exist.

Table 3. Subscale intercorrelations (Spearman’s rho) of the CCRQ subscales (N = 499).

	Respect and attentiveness	Responsiveness to needs and preferences	Education and enablement	Interaction with significant others
Respect and attentiveness
Responsiveness to needs and preferences	0.585**
Education and enablement	0.704**	0.492**
Interaction with significant others	0.355**	0.318**	0.474**

** p < 0.001.

Table 4. CCRQ-is subscale scores for age and gender (N = 499).

		Subscales
		Respect and attentiveness	Interaction with significant others	Responsiveness to needs and preferences	Education and enablement
Gender	Age	Mean (Sd/n)	Mean (Sd/n)	Mean (Sd/n)	Mean (Sd/n)
Women	≥ 39	4.37 (0.71/81)	2.93 (1.01/81)	3.85 (0.96/81)	3.71 (0.83/81)
	40–54	4.51 (0.45/102)	2.97 (0.80/102)	4.26 (0.70/102)	4.00 (0.67/102)
	55–64	4.59 (0.37/73)	3.21 (0.84/73)	4.52 (0.47/73)	4.04 (0.66/73)
	65 ≥	4.52 (0.39/35)	3.56 (1.07/35)	4.47 (0.45/35)	4.22 (0.62/35)
Men	≥ 39	4.38 (0.41/28)	3.01 (0.89/28)	4.20 (0.47/28)	3.73 (0.81/28)
	40–54	4.50 (0.37/49)	3.34 (0.73/49)	4.35 (0.50/49)	4.02 (0.54/49)
	55–64	4.57 (0.40/46)	3.74 (0.78/46)	4.46 (0.51/46)	4.23 (0.65/46)
	65 ≥	4.51 (0.35/72)	3.53 (0.69/72)	4.41 (0.44/72)	4.00 (0.65/72)

Table 5. CCRQ-is responses of participants with different health issues.

CCRQ-is - Subscales	Mean(sd/n)
	Cardiac and/or pulmonary health issue	No cardiac or pulmonary health issue	p-value^a
Respect and attentiveness	4.55 (0.39/189)	4.45 (0.51/301)	0.074
Interaction with significant others	3.43 (0.81/189)	3.08 (0.91/301)	˂0.001^b
Responsiveness to needs and preferences	4.45 (0.46/189)	4.19 (0.74/301)	˂0.001^b
Education and enablement	4.10 (0.66/189)	3.90 (0.71/301)	˂0.001^b
	Mental health issue	No mental health issue
Respect and attentiveness	4.43 (0.58/133)	4.51 (0.42/357)	0.458
Interaction with significant others	2.83 (0.90/133)	3.36 (0.84/357)	˂0.001^b
Responsiveness to needs and preferences	4.15 (0.80/133)	4.34 (0.59/357)	0.065
Education and enablement	3.87 (0.79/133)	4.01 (0.65/357)	0.086

^aMann-Whitney U-test. SD: standard deviation. ^bSignificant difference.