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.
N1 - Funding Information:
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.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
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 -