Clinical application and feasibility of utilizing the PEDI-CAT to assess activity and participation among children receiving physical therapy incorporating hippotherapy

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for child participants.

Total Participants	34
Gender	18 female, 16 male
Mean Age (SD) Range
All Participants (N = 34) Time 1	4.8 (2.5) 1.9–11.8
All Participants (N = 34) Time 2	5.4 (2.5) 2.4–12.3
Cerebral Palsy (n = 10) Time 1	4.9 (2.0) 1.9–7.5
Cerebral Palsy (n = 10) Time 2	5.5 (2.0) 2.5–8.2
Autism (n = 9) Time 1	3.9 (1.5) 1.9–6.6
Autism (n = 9) Time 2	4.5 (1.5) 2.4–7.1
Diagnoses
Cerebral Palsy	10
Autism	9
Other Genetic Syndrome	5
Spina Bifida	2
Ehler-Danlos Syndrome	2
Angelman Syndrome	1
Cancer	1
Developmental Delay	1
Down Syndrome	1
Stroke	1
Traumatic Brain Injury	1
Client Status
New	25
Ongoing	9
Attendance rate
Mean # of sessions	23
Mean % attendance (range)	85% (68%-100%)

Table 2. Significant results of likelihood ratios for linear mixed effects models.

Model		χ^2(df)	p value
Mobility
1	Participant variability
2	Participant variability + initial age	5.48(1)	0.019
3	Participant variability + initial age + time	20.97(1)	< 0.001*
Social/Cognitive
1	Participant variability
2	Participant variability + initial age	22.36(1)	< 0.001*
3	Participant variability + initial age + time	12.15(1)	< 0.001*
Daily Activities
1	Participant variability
2	Participant variability + initial age	15.34(1)	< 0.001*
3	Participant variability + initial age + time	14.63(1)	< 0.001*
Responsibility
1	Participant variability
2	Participant variability + initial age	16.12(1)	0.025
3	Participant variability + initial age + time	5.08(1)	0.132

Bonferroni-adjusted value used for significance was: *p < .0125. Additional independent variables did not significantly improve the model and are not reported in table.

Figure 1 a. The violin plots above depict the distribution of PEDI-CAT scaled scores for Mobility and Daily Activities domains for all participants (N = 34), cerebral palsy subset (n = 10), and autism subset (n = 9). Assessment 1 and 2 refer to T1 and T2. Solid circles represent group means, and open circles represent individuals’ scores. A wider violin corresponds to a greater density of scores.

Figure 1 b. The violin plots above depict the distribution of PEDI-CAT scaled scores for the Social Cognitive domain for all participants (N = 34), cerebral palsy subset (n = 10), and autism subset (n = 9) and Responsibility domain for all participants 3 years of age or older (N = 23), cerebral palsy subset (n = 7), and autism subset (n = 6). Assessment 1 and 2 refer to T1 and T2. Solid circles represent group means, and open circles represent individuals’ scores. A wider violin corresponds to a greater density of scores.

Table 3. PEDI-CAT scaled scores for time 1 and time 2.

	Mobility	Social Cognitive	Daily Activities	Responsibility
All Participants	(N = 34)	(N = 34)	(N = 34)	(n = 23)
T1 Mean (SD)	59.0 (5.8)	58.9 (6.1)	50.2 (4.9)	41.2 (6.6)
T2 Mean (SD)	60.8 (5.8)	60.4 (5.5)	51. 6 (4.9)	42.5 (7.8)
Mean Change	1.8*	1.5*	1.4*	1.3
Cohen’s d	0.30	0.25	0.27	0.18
Cohen’s d 95% CI	(−0.20, 0.78)	(−0.25, 0.72)	(−0.23, 0.75)	(−0.42, 0.78)
Cerebral Palsy	(n = 10)	(n = 10)	(n = 10)	(n = 7)
T1 Mean (SD)	56.1 (7.1)	58.4 (7.0)	49.7 (4.2)	41.7 (4.9)
T2 Mean (SD)	57.5 (7.2)	60.2 (5.6)	50.5 (4.1)	42.0 (5.5)
Mean Change	1.4	1.8	0.8	0.3
Cohen’s d	0.18	0.26	0.18	0.05
Cohen’s d 95% CI	(−0.76, 1.12)	(−0.69, 1.20)	(−0.77, 1.12)	(−1.11, 1.22)
Autism	(n = 9)	(n = 9)	(n = 9)	(n = 6)
T1 Mean (SD)	61.3 (5.7)	57.9 (5.7)	49.3 (4.0)	38.2 (5.1)
T2 Mean (SD)	62.8 (4.7)	58.7 (5.0)	51.8 (3.8)	39.7 (7.2)
Mean Change	1.5	0.8	2.5	1.5
Cohen’s d	0.26	0.14	0.58	0.20
Cohen’s d 95% CI	(−0.68, 1.20)	(−0.81, 1.10)	(−0.38, 1.54)	(−1.09, 1.49)

Bonferroni-adjusted value used for significance were: *p < .0125 (p-values reported in Table 2). Linear mixed effects models were not run for cerebral palsy and autism subgroups due to small sample size.

Table

In what ways did using the PEDI-CAT impact your treatment plan? How did you share results of the PEDI-CAT with your clients’ families? What information did the PEDI-CAT results provide that you may not have known without it? Did the PEDI-CAT reveal any skills or areas of need that you did not see in clinical observation? If so, please explain. How do you describe each domain to your clients’ caregivers? How did the participants’ parents or caregivers respond when presented with PEDI-CAT results? How did you use the PEDI-CAT to help evaluate treatment frequency or discharge planning? Were any of your clients’ caregivers unable to complete the PEDI-CAT due to technical difficulties? If so, please explain. How closely do caregiver answers to each survey item match what you see in your clinical observations? How did you use PEDI-CAT results to help write your goals for your clients?