Validity of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: A comparison between two countries

Abstract

Purpose. To evaluate the cross-cultural validity of the five subscales of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA) measure and the full 31-item scale.

Method. Data from two validation studies (Dutch and English) were pooled (n = 106). Participants (aged 18 – 75), known to rehabilitation services or GP practices, had conditions ranging from minor ailments to significant disability. Validity of the five subscales and the total scale was examined using Rasch analysis (Partial Credit Model). P values smaller than 0.01 were employed to allow for multiple testing.

Results. A number of items in all the subscales except ‘Outdoor Autonomy’ needed rescoring. One ‘Indoor Autonomy’ item showed uniform DIF by country and was split by country. One ‘Work and Education’ item displayed uniform and non-uniform DIF by gender. All the subscales fitted the Rasch model and were invariant across country. A 30-item IPA also fitted the Rasch model.

Conclusion. The IPA subscales and a 30-item scale are invariant across the two cultures and gender. The IPA can be used validly to assess participation and autonomy in these populations. Further analyses are required to examine whether the IPA is invariant across differing levels of disability and other disease groups not included in this study.

Keywords:

• Outcome assessment (health care)
• rehabilitation
• chronic disease

Notes

^*The study was conducted in Hampshire, Wiltshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire in the United Kingdom and in North Holland in The Netherlands