Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility device users

References

• (NOD) N.O.o.D. Harris Survey. National Organization of Disability (NOD), Washington, DC 2000
   Google Scholar
• Kaye H S, Kang T, LaPlante M P. Disability statistics report: mobility device use in the United States. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education. 2000
   Google Scholar
• LaPlante H G, Moss A J. Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: prevalence, payment, need, and trends. Adv Data 1992; 217: 1–11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• WHO, W.H.O. ICF: International classification of functioning, disability and health. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva 2001
   Google Scholar
• Law M, Cooper B, Strong S, Rigby P, Letts L. The Person-Environment-Occupation Model: a transactive approach to occupational performance. Can J Occup Ther 1996; 63: 9–23
   Google Scholar
• Rebiero K. Enabling occupation: the importance of an affirming environment. Can J Occup Ther 2001; 68: 80–89
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lawton M, Nahemow L. Ecology and the aging process. The psychology of adult development and aging, M Eisdorfer. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC 1973; 619–674
   Google Scholar
• French J, Rodgers W, Cobb S. Adjustment as Person-environment fit. Coping and adaptation, D Coelho, J Adams. Basic Books, New York 1974; 316–333
   Google Scholar
• Fougeyrollas P. Documenting environmental factors for preventing the handicap creation process: Quebec contributions related to ICIDH and social participation of people with functional differences. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 145–153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shumway-Cook A. Environmental components of mobility disability in community-living older Persons. J Am Geriatrics Soc 2003; 51: 393–398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keysor J J. Appendix D: how does the environment influence disability? Examining the evidence. Workshop on disability in America: a new look, M Field, A Jette, L Martin. National Academies Press, Washington, DC 2006; 88–100
   Google Scholar
• Sanford J, Story M, Jones M. An analysis of the effects of ramp slope on people with mobility impairments. Assist Technol 1997; 9: 22–33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gray D. Mobility impaired individuals with secondary conditions: health, participation and environments. Final report submitted to Office of Disability and Health. CDC, Washington, DC 2003
   Google Scholar
• Gray D, Hendershot G. The ICIDH-2: developments for a new era of outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81(2)S10–S14
   Google Scholar
• Meyers A, Anderson J J, Miller D R, Shipp K, Hoenig H. Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: substantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. Soc Sci Med 2002; 55: 1437–1448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette A, Badley E. Chapter 2: conceptual issues in the measurement of work disability. Survey measurement of work disability: summary of a workshop, N Mathiowetz, G S Wunderlich. National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2000
   Google Scholar
• Djikers M, Whiteneck G, El-Jaroudi R. Measures of social outcomes in disability research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: S63–S80
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noreau L, Fougeyrollas P, Post M, Asano M. Participation after spinal cord injury: the evolution of conceptualization and measurement. J Neurolog Phys Ther 2005; 29(3)147–156
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nagi S. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. American sociological association, M Sussman. Sociology and Rehabilitation, Washington, DC 1965; 100–113
   Google Scholar
• Jette A, Haley S, Kooyoomjian J. Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct?. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 145–149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, Doubleday 1959
   Google Scholar
• Goffman E. Stigma. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1963
   Google Scholar
• Friedson E. Disability as social deviance, sociology and rehabilitation: a structural approach. Doss, Mean and Co., New York, NY 1965
   Google Scholar
• Moser I. Disability and the promises of technology: technology, subjectivity, and embodiment within an order of the normal. Information, Communication & Society 2006; 9(3)373–395
   Google Scholar
• Goggin G, Newell C. Digital disability: the social construction of disability in new media. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham and Oxford 2003
   Google Scholar
• Nelson N, Wright S. Power and participatory development: theory and practice. ITDG, London 1995
   Google Scholar
• Chambers R. Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. Power and participatory development, N Nelson, S Write. Intermediate Technology Publications, London 1995
   Google Scholar
• Action and knowledge: breaking the monopoly with participatory action-research, O Fals-Boroda, M Rahman. Apex, New York 1991
   Google Scholar
• Seelman K. Katherine Seelman on participatory action research. Innovator 1997; 2(2)1
   Google Scholar
• Schriner K. Participatory action research in rehabilitation policy and practice. Forging collaborative partnerships in the study of disability: A NIDRR conference on participatory action research, Washington, DC, 1995
   Google Scholar
• Jette A, Haley S. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 339–345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R O, Jansen C, Seitz J, Rust K L. The ICF in the context of assistive technology (AT) interventions and outcome 2006, ATOMS Project Technical Report. http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/icf.html
   Google Scholar
• Lenker J, Jutai J. Assistive technology outcomes research and clinical practice: what role for the ICF. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2002, http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/icf_jun02_papers_6A_e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer M J, Jutai J, Scherer M J, De Rutyer F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25(22)1243–1251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willer B, Ottenbacher J J, Coad M L. The community integration questionnaire: a comparative examination. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 73(2)103–111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteneck G G, Charlifue S W, Gerhart K A, Overholser J D, Richardson G N. Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 519–526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noreau L, Derosiers J, Robichaud L, Fougeyrollas P, Rochette A, Viscogilosi C. Measuring social participation: reliability of the LIFE-H in older adults with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26(6)346–352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette A, Haley S M, Coster W J, Kooyoomjian J T, Levenson S, Heeren J A. Late life function and disability instrument: I. Development and evaluation of the disability component. J Gerontol Med Sci 2002; 57A: M209–M216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray D, Hollingsworth H, Morgan K. Group differences in community participation by mobility device use. RESNA, Atlanta, GA 2006
   Google Scholar
• Cardol M, De Haan R J, De Jong B, van Den Bos G A, de Groot J M. Psychometric properties of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 210–216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown M, Dijkers M P, Gordon W A, Ashman T, Charatx T, Cheng Z. Participation objective, participation subjective: a measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004; 19: 459–481
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brakel W H, Anderson A M, Mutatkar R K, Bakirtzief Z, Nicholls P G, Raju M S, Das Pattanayak R K. The participation scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28(4)193–203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai J W, Teasell R, Foley N C, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF participation. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27(9)507–528
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rust K L, Smith R O. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes: a review and analysis of instruments. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84(10)780–793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rochette A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levasseur M. Optimal participation: a reflective look. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 29(19)1231–1235
   Google Scholar
• Perenboom R JM, Chorus A MJ. Measuring participation according to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25(11 – 12)577–587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desrosiers J. Participation and occupation. Can J Occup Ther 2005; 72(4)195–203
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cardol M, deJong B, Ward C D. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(18)970–974
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray D, Hollingsworth H H, Stark S L, Morgan K A. PARTS/M: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87(2)189–197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rust K L, Smith R O. Technical report – the inclusion of assistive technology outcomes in current health and rehabilitation outcome measures (Version 1.0). R2D2 Center at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 2004, www.r2d2.uwm.edu
   Google Scholar
• Reindal S. Independence, dependence, interdependence: some reflections on the subject and personal autonomy. Disabil Soc 1999; 14(3)353–367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giacomini M, Cook D. A user's guide to qualitative research in health care. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 284(4)478–482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The compact Oxford English Dictionary, R W Burchfield. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M J. The change in emphasis from Person to Person: introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1 – 3)1–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pape T L, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1 – 3)5–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam M, Geenen S, Powers L, Saxton M, Finney S, Dautel P. Health and wellness: people with disabilities discuss barriers and facilitators to well being. J Rehabil 2003; 69(1)37–45
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim-Rupnow W. Disability and Korean culture. Culture and disability: providing culturally competent services, J H Stone. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA 2005
   Google Scholar
• Saadah M A. Clinical commentary: on autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(18)977–982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser I. On becoming disabled and articulating alternatives: the multiple modes of ordering disability and their interferences. Cultural Studies 2005; 19(6)667–700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers M. Letter to the Editor: comments on van Brakel et al.'s Participation Scale. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28(21)1360–1362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz N. Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 1999; 54(2)93–105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison D A, McLaughlin M E, Coalter T M. Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1996; 68: 246–261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz N, Bienias J. What mediates the impact of response alternatives on frequency reports of mundane behaviors?. Appl Cognit Psychol 1990; 4: 61–72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepper S. Problems in the quantification of frequency expressions. D Fiske. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1981; 25–41
   Google Scholar
• Westerterp K. Physical activity assessment with accelerometers. Int J Obesity 1999; 23: S45–S49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassett D, Cureton A, Ainsworth B. Measurement of daily walking distance: questionnaire versus pedometer. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2002; 32(5)1018–1023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washburn R, Copay A. Assessing physical activity during wheelchair pushing: validity of a portable accelerometer. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 1999; 16: 290–299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf J, Guensler R, Washington S, Frank L. The use of electronic travel diaries and vehicle instrumentation packages in the year 2000 Atlanta Regional Household Travel Survey. Personal travel: the long and short of IT. The Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC 1999, (Report)
   Google Scholar
• Wolf J. Applications of new technologies in travel surveys. International Conference on Transport Survey Quality and Innovation, Costa Rica, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Wagner D. Global positioning systems for personal travel surveys: Lexington area travel data collection test. Report to the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT. Battelle Transportation Division, Washington, DC September, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Stopher P. Using passive GPS as a means to improve spatial travel data. 7th International Conference on Applications of Advanced Technologies to Transportation, Cambridge, MA, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Wolf J, Oliveira M, Thompson M. The impact of trip underreporting on VMT and travel time estimates: preliminary findings from the California Statewide Household Travel Survey GPS Study. Proceedings of the 82th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003
   Google Scholar
• Stopher P, Bullock P, Horst F. Conducting a GPS Survey with a time-use diary. Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003
   Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Pieper C, Zolkewitz M, Schenkman M, Branch L G. Wheelchair users are not necessarily wheelchair bound. J Am Geriatric Soc 2002; 50(4)645–654
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Landerman L R, Shipp K, Pieper C, Richardson M, Pahel N, George L. A clinical trial of a rehabilitation expert clinician versus usual care for providing manual wheelchairs. J Am Geriatric Soc 2005; 53(10)1712–1720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig H, Landerman L R, Shipp K, George L. Activity restriction among wheelchair users. J Am Geriatrics Soc 2003; 51(9)1244–1251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Vincent C, Derosiers J, Nadeau S. Mobility of wheelchair users: a proposed performance assessment framework. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 19–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser B. Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press, Mills Valley, CA 1992
   Google Scholar
• Holm M, Rogers J, Stone R. Person-task-environment interventions: a decision making guide. Willard and Spackman's Occupational Therapy, E Crepeau, E Cohen, B Schell. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA 2003; 460–490
   Google Scholar
• Shumway-Cook A, Patla A, Stewart A L, Ferrucci L, Ciol M A, Guralnik J M. Assessing environmentally determined mobility disability: self-report versus observed community mobility. J Am Geriatrics Soc 2005; 53(4)700
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keysor J J, Jette A, Haley S. Development of the home and community environment (HACE) instrument. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 37–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar