Validity and reliability of a novel measure of activity performance and participation

References

• Lynch SM, Brown JS, Taylor MG. Demographics of disability. In: Uhlenberg P, ed. International handbook of population aging. New York: Springer; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Albert SM, Freedman VA. Public health and aging: maximizing function and well-being, 2nd ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company LLC; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Altman BM. Population survey measures of functioning: strengths and weaknesses. In: Wunderlich GS, ed. Improving the measurement of late-life disability in population surveys beyond ADLs and IADLs. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2009:99--156
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Katz S, Ford A, Moskowitz R, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. J Am Med Assoc 1963;185:914–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton M, Brody E. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969;9:179–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDowell I. Measuring health a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Dittmar SS, Gresham GE, eds. Functional assessment and outcome measures for the rehabilitation health professional. Gathersburg, MD: Aspen; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Wade D, Smeets R, Verbun J. Research in rehabilitation medecine: methodological challenges. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:699–704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovar M, Lawton M. Functional disability: activities and instrumental activities of daily living. In: Kovar M, Lawton M, eds. Annual review of geriatrics and gerontology. New York: Springer Press; 1994:57--75
   Google Scholar
• Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide Clinical Rehabilitation Online [serial on the Internet]. 2008: Available from: http://cre.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0269215508101742v1.pdf [last accessed 8 Jul 2009]
   Google Scholar
• Grill E, Stucki G. Scales could be developed based on simple clinical ratings of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set categories. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:891–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Haley SM. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:339–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson V. Assessment in function in older adults. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Assessing older persons measures, meaning and practical applications. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2000:17--34
   Google Scholar
• Uniform Data Systems. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (Adult FIM), version 5.0. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo; 1999
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney F, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965;14:56–61
   Google Scholar
• Lawton M. Quality of life in chronic illness. Gerontologist 1999;45:181–3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen ME, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:S21–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Gill T, Robson J, Tinetti M. Difficulty and dependence: two components of the disability continuum among community-living older persons. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:96–101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tooby J, Cosmides L. The psychological foundations of culture. In: Barkow J, Tooby J, Cosmides L, eds. The adapted mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000:19--136
   Google Scholar
• Tattersall I. Becoming human evolution and human uniqueness. New York: Mariner Books; 1999
   Google Scholar
• McCuaig M, Frank G. The able self: patterns and choices in independent living for a person with cerebral palsy. Am J Occup Ther 1991;45:224–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Good days, bad days. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 1991
   Google Scholar
• Reed G, Lux J, Bufka L, et al. Operationalizing the international classification of functioning, disability and health in clinical settings. Rehabil Psychol 2005;50:122–31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magasi S, Hammel J, Heinemann A, et al. Participation: a comparative analysis of multiple rehabilitation stakeholders’ perspectives. J Rehabil Med 2009;41:936–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers MP. Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S5–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magasi S, Post M. A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S17–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil 2009;23:362–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R, Darzins P, Steel C, et al. Outcome measures in rehabilitation. Parkville: National Ageing Research Institute; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Whiteneck G, Dijkers M. Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:S22–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badley E. Enhancing the conceptual clarity of the activity and participation components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Soc Sci Med 2008;66:2335–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers A. What is this thing called science? Buckingham: Oxford University Press; 1999
   Google Scholar
• Brown D. Human universals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1991
   Google Scholar
• American Occupational Therapy Association. Uniform terminology for occupational therapy, 3rd ed. Am J Occup Ther 1994;48:1047–59
   Google Scholar
• Perenboom R, Chorus A. Measuring participation according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:577–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein A. Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1987
   Google Scholar
• Fayers P, Hand D. Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 2002;165:233–52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein A. Multi-item “instruments” vs Virginia Apgar’s principles of clinimetrics. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:125–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein AR, Josephy BR, Wells CK. Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med 1986;105:413–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fava G, Balaise C. A discussion on the role of clinimetrics and the misleading effects of psychometric theory. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:753–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fava G, Tomba E, Sonino N. Clinimetrics: the science of clinical measurements. Int J Clin Pract 2011;66:11–15
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D. Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. J Pers Assess 2003;80:217–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molineux M. Occupation for occupational therapists. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Disability and its relationship to health conditions and other factors. Canberra: AIHW (Disability Series); 2004
   Google Scholar
• Guralnik J, Ferrucci L. Demography and epidemiology. In: Halter JB, Ouslander JG, Tinetti ME, et al, eds. Hazzard’s geriatric medicine and gerontology. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2009:45--67
   Google Scholar
• Collin C, Wade D, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988;10:61–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:1234–51
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. Belmont: Duxbury Press; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Algina J, Keselman H, Penfield R. Effect sizes and their intervals: the two-level repeated measures case. Educ Psychol Meas 2005;65:241–58
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Algina J, Keselman H, Penfield R. Confidence interval coverage for Cohen’s effect size statistic. Educ Psychol Meas 2006;66:945–60
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grissom R, Kim J. Effect sizes for research: univariate and multivariate applications. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Algina J, Keselman H, Penfield R. An alternative to Cohen’s standardized mean difference effect size: a robust parameter and confidence interval in the two independent groups case. Psychol Methods 2005;10:317–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Older Australia at a glance. Canberra: AIHW 52; 2007
   Google Scholar