Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators

Jessica Kersey; Lauren Terhorst; Allen W. Heinemann; Joy Hammel; Carolyn Baum; Michael McCue; Elizabeth R. Skidmore

doi:10.1177/02692155211040930

Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators

Jessica Kersey^*, Lauren Terhorst, Allen W. Heinemann, Joy Hammel, Carolyn Baum, Michael McCue, Elizabeth R. Skidmore

^*Corresponding author for this work

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: This study examined the construct validity of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators. Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study of rehabilitation outcomes. Subjects: The parent study included 604 community-dwelling adults with chronic traumatic brain injury, stroke, or spinal cord injury. The sample had a mean age of 64.1 years, was two-thirds male, and included a high proportion of racial minorities (n = 250, 41.4%). Main measures: The Enfranchisement scale contains two subscales: the Control subscale and the Importance subscale. We examined correlations between each Enfranchisement subscale and measures of participation, environment, and impairments. The current analyses included cases with at least 80% of items completed on each subscale (Control subscale: n = 391; Importance subscale: n = 219). Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation. Results: The sample demonstrated high scores, indicating poor enfranchisement (Control subscale: M = 51.7; Importance subscale: M = 43.0). Both subscales were most strongly associated with measures of participation (Control subscale: r = 0.56; Importance subscale: r = 0.52), and least strongly associated with measures of cognition (Control subscale: r = 0.03; Importance subscale: r = 0.03). The Importance subscale was closely associated with depression (r = 0.54), and systems, services, and policies (r = 0.50). Both subscales were associated with social attitudes (Control subscale: r = 0.44; Importance subscale: r = 0.44) and social support (Control subscale: r = 0.49; Importance subscale: r = 0.41). Conclusions: We found evidence of convergent validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of participation, and discriminant validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of disability-related impairments. The analyses also revealed the importance of the environment to enfranchisement outcomes.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	263-271
Number of pages	9
Journal	Clinical Rehabilitation
Volume	36
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155211040930
State	Published - Feb 2022

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Institute of Disability, Independent Living, and Reha-bilitation Research through a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Improving Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes grant (H133B090024), the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (H133F140037), and the University of Pittsburgh School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Dissertation Fund.

Keywords

Validity
community participation
patient-centred outcome measure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1177/02692155211040930

Cite this

@article{0f9431fb373e4439be1c16fdc27940e8,

title = "Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators",

abstract = "Objective: This study examined the construct validity of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators. Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study of rehabilitation outcomes. Subjects: The parent study included 604 community-dwelling adults with chronic traumatic brain injury, stroke, or spinal cord injury. The sample had a mean age of 64.1 years, was two-thirds male, and included a high proportion of racial minorities (n = 250, 41.4%). Main measures: The Enfranchisement scale contains two subscales: the Control subscale and the Importance subscale. We examined correlations between each Enfranchisement subscale and measures of participation, environment, and impairments. The current analyses included cases with at least 80% of items completed on each subscale (Control subscale: n = 391; Importance subscale: n = 219). Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation. Results: The sample demonstrated high scores, indicating poor enfranchisement (Control subscale: M = 51.7; Importance subscale: M = 43.0). Both subscales were most strongly associated with measures of participation (Control subscale: r = 0.56; Importance subscale: r = 0.52), and least strongly associated with measures of cognition (Control subscale: r = 0.03; Importance subscale: r = 0.03). The Importance subscale was closely associated with depression (r = 0.54), and systems, services, and policies (r = 0.50). Both subscales were associated with social attitudes (Control subscale: r = 0.44; Importance subscale: r = 0.44) and social support (Control subscale: r = 0.49; Importance subscale: r = 0.41). Conclusions: We found evidence of convergent validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of participation, and discriminant validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of disability-related impairments. The analyses also revealed the importance of the environment to enfranchisement outcomes.",

keywords = "Validity, community participation, patient-centred outcome measure",

author = "Jessica Kersey and Lauren Terhorst and Heinemann, {Allen W.} and Joy Hammel and Carolyn Baum and Michael McCue and Skidmore, {Elizabeth R.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2021.",

year = "2022",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1177/02692155211040930",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "36",

pages = "263--271",

journal = "Clinical Rehabilitation",

issn = "0269-2155",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators

AU - Kersey, Jessica

AU - Terhorst, Lauren

AU - Heinemann, Allen W.

AU - Hammel, Joy

AU - Baum, Carolyn

AU - McCue, Michael

AU - Skidmore, Elizabeth R.

PY - 2022/2

Y1 - 2022/2

N2 - Objective: This study examined the construct validity of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators. Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study of rehabilitation outcomes. Subjects: The parent study included 604 community-dwelling adults with chronic traumatic brain injury, stroke, or spinal cord injury. The sample had a mean age of 64.1 years, was two-thirds male, and included a high proportion of racial minorities (n = 250, 41.4%). Main measures: The Enfranchisement scale contains two subscales: the Control subscale and the Importance subscale. We examined correlations between each Enfranchisement subscale and measures of participation, environment, and impairments. The current analyses included cases with at least 80% of items completed on each subscale (Control subscale: n = 391; Importance subscale: n = 219). Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation. Results: The sample demonstrated high scores, indicating poor enfranchisement (Control subscale: M = 51.7; Importance subscale: M = 43.0). Both subscales were most strongly associated with measures of participation (Control subscale: r = 0.56; Importance subscale: r = 0.52), and least strongly associated with measures of cognition (Control subscale: r = 0.03; Importance subscale: r = 0.03). The Importance subscale was closely associated with depression (r = 0.54), and systems, services, and policies (r = 0.50). Both subscales were associated with social attitudes (Control subscale: r = 0.44; Importance subscale: r = 0.44) and social support (Control subscale: r = 0.49; Importance subscale: r = 0.41). Conclusions: We found evidence of convergent validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of participation, and discriminant validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of disability-related impairments. The analyses also revealed the importance of the environment to enfranchisement outcomes.

AB - Objective: This study examined the construct validity of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators. Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study of rehabilitation outcomes. Subjects: The parent study included 604 community-dwelling adults with chronic traumatic brain injury, stroke, or spinal cord injury. The sample had a mean age of 64.1 years, was two-thirds male, and included a high proportion of racial minorities (n = 250, 41.4%). Main measures: The Enfranchisement scale contains two subscales: the Control subscale and the Importance subscale. We examined correlations between each Enfranchisement subscale and measures of participation, environment, and impairments. The current analyses included cases with at least 80% of items completed on each subscale (Control subscale: n = 391; Importance subscale: n = 219). Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation. Results: The sample demonstrated high scores, indicating poor enfranchisement (Control subscale: M = 51.7; Importance subscale: M = 43.0). Both subscales were most strongly associated with measures of participation (Control subscale: r = 0.56; Importance subscale: r = 0.52), and least strongly associated with measures of cognition (Control subscale: r = 0.03; Importance subscale: r = 0.03). The Importance subscale was closely associated with depression (r = 0.54), and systems, services, and policies (r = 0.50). Both subscales were associated with social attitudes (Control subscale: r = 0.44; Importance subscale: r = 0.44) and social support (Control subscale: r = 0.49; Importance subscale: r = 0.41). Conclusions: We found evidence of convergent validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of participation, and discriminant validity between the Enfranchisement scale and measures of disability-related impairments. The analyses also revealed the importance of the environment to enfranchisement outcomes.

KW - Validity

KW - community participation

KW - patient-centred outcome measure

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85113150884&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85113150884&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/02692155211040930

DO - 10.1177/02692155211040930

M3 - Article

C2 - 34414799

AN - SCOPUS:85113150884

SN - 0269-2155

VL - 36

SP - 263

EP - 271

JO - Clinical Rehabilitation

JF - Clinical Rehabilitation

IS - 2

ER -

Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this