Evaluation of the internal construct validity of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) using Rasch analysis

BMC Health Services Research

Julie F Pallant¹  Nicholas F Taylor⁴  Marilyn Di Stefano²  Christine Imms³  Susan Darzins² 

[1] Rural Health Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Shepparton, Victoria, Australia;School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia;School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Locked Bag 4115, Fitzroy 3065, Australia;Eastern Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia

关键词: Participation;    World Health Organisation;    Construct validity;    Validation studies;    Outcome assessment;    Activities of daily living;    Rehabilitation;   

Others  :  1092286
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0543-z

 received in 2014-03-06, accepted in 2014-10-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) is a 43-item, clinician-administered assessment, designed to identify patients’ unmet needs (participation restrictions) in activities of daily living (ADL) required for community life. This information is important for identifying problems that need addressing to enable, for example, discharge from inpatient settings to community living. The objective of this study was to evaluate internal construct validity of the PC-PART using Rasch methods.

Methods

Fit to the Rasch model was evaluated for 41 PC-PART items, assessing threshold ordering, overall model fit, individual item fit, person fit, internal consistency, Differential Item Functioning (DIF), targeting of items and dimensionality. Data used in this research were taken from admission data from a randomised controlled trial conducted at two publically funded inpatient rehabilitation units in Melbourne, Australia, with 996 participants (63% women; mean age 74 years) and with various impairment types.

Results

PC-PART items assessed as one scale, and original PC-PART domains evaluated as separate scales, demonstrated poor fit to the Rasch model. Adequate fit to the Rasch model was achieved in two newly formed PC-PART scales: Self-Care (16 items) and Domestic Life (14 items). Both scales were unidimensional, had acceptable internal consistency (PSI =0.85, 0.76, respectively) and well-targeted items.

Conclusions

Rasch analysis did not support conventional summation of all PC-PART item scores to create a total score. However, internal construct validity of the newly formed PC-PART scales, Self-Care and Domestic Life, was supported. Their Rasch-derived scores provided interval-level measurement enabling summation of scores to form a total score on each scale. These scales may assist clinicians, managers and researchers in rehabilitation settings to assess and measure changes in ADL participation restrictions relevant to community living.

Trial registration

Data used in this research were gathered during a registered randomised controlled trial: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000973213 webcite. Ethics committee approval was gained for secondary analysis of data for this study.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Darzins et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). WHO, Geneva; 2001.
• [2]Whiteneck G, Dijkers MP: Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009, 90(11 Suppl):S22-S35.
• [3]Dijkers MP: Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010, 91(9 Suppl):S5-S16.
• [4]Heinemann AW, Tulsky D, Dijkers M, Brown M, Magasi S, Gordon W, DeMark H: Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010, 91(9 Suppl):S72-S76.
• [5]Badley EM: Enhancing the conceptual clarity of the activity and participation components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Soc Sci Med 2008, 66(11):2335-2345.
• [6]Dalemans R, De Witte L, Wade D, Van den Heuvel W: A description of social participation in working-age persons with aphasia: a review of the literature. Aphasiology 2008, 22(10):1071-1091.
• [7]Granger CV, Hamilton BB: UDS report. the uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1990. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1992, 71(2):108-113.
• [8]Mahoney F, Barthel D: Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J 1965, 14:62.
• [9]Clemson L, Bundy A, Unsworth C, Singh MF: Validation of the modified assessment of living skills and resources, an IADL measure for older people. Disabil Rehabil 2009, 31(5):359-369.
• [10]Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, Bergeron H, Cloutier R, Dion SA, St-Michel G: Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Int J Rehabil Res 1998, 21(2):127-141.
• [11]Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, Overholser JD, Richardson GN: Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992, 73(6):519-526.
• [12]Hébert R, Carrier R, Bilodeau A: The Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF): description and validation of an instrument for the measurement of handicaps. Age Ageing 1988, 17(5):293-302.
• [13]Vertesi A, Darzins P, Lowe S, McEvoy E, Edwards M: Development of the Handicap Assessment and Resource Tool (HART). Can J Occup Ther 2000, 67(2):120-127.
• [14]Turner C, Fricke J, Darzins P: Interrater reliability of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) in a rehabilitation setting. Aust Occup Ther J 2009, 56(2):132-139.
• [15]Darzins S, Imms C, Di Stefano M: Measurement properties of the personal care participation assessment and resource tool: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2013, 35(4):265-281.
• [16]Radia-George C, Imms C, Taylor N: The inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Am J Occup Ther 2014, 68(3):334-343.
• [17]Rasch G: Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Nielson and Lydiche, Copenhagen; 1960.
• [18]Nilsson AL, Tennant A: Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) revisited. J Rehabil Med 2011, 43:884-891.
• [19]Das Nair R, Moreton B, Lincoln N: Rasch analysis of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale. J Rehabil Med 2011, 43:944-950.
• [20]de Morton NA, Keating JL, Davidson M: Rasch analysis of the Barthel Index in the assessment of hospitalized older patients after admission for an acute medical condition. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008, 89(4):641-647.
• [21]Finlayson M, Mallinson T, Barbosa V: Activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) items were stable over time in a longitudinal study on aging. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:338-349.
• [22]Coster WJ, Haley SM, Andres PL, Ludlow LH, Bond TLY, Ni P-S: Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement: personal care and instrumental activities domain. Med Care 2004, 42(1 Suppl):I62-I72.
• [23]Tennant A, McKenna S, Hagell P: Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004, 7(Supplement 1):S22-S26.
• [24]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford University Press, New York; 2008.
• [25]Tennant A, Conaghan P: The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57(8):1358-1362.
• [26]Hagquist C, Bruce M, Gustavsson P: Using the Rasch model in nursing research: an introduction and illustrative example. Int J Nurs Stud 2009, 46:380-393.
• [27]Pallant J, Tennant A: An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol 2007, 46:1-18.
• [28]Taylor NF, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Shields N, Peiris C, Sullivan N, Kennedy G, Teo CK, Farley A, Lockwood K, Radia-George C: A study protocol of a randomised controlled trial incorporating a health economic analysis to investigate if additional allied health services for rehabilitation reduce length of stay without compromising patient outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:308. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Darzins P: PC-PART: Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool user's manual. PART Group, [e-mail], Melbourne; 2004.
• [30]Francis J: How to use the PC-PART to guide in-patient rehabilitation. The PART Group, [e-mail], Australia; 2004.
• [31]Smith E: Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal components analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002, 3:205-231.
• [32]Bland JM, Altman DG: Multiple significane tests: the Bonferroni method. Br Med J 1995, 310:170.
• [33]Andrich D, Sheridan G, Luo G: RUMM 2030. RUMM Laboratory, Perth; 2012.
• [34]Linacre JM: Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Trans 1994, 7:28.
• [35]Tennant A, Pallant J: Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Meas Trans 2006, 20(1):1048-1051.
• [36]Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, Amman E, Kollerits B, Chatterji S, Ustün TB, Stucki G: Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med 2002, 34(5):205-210.
• [37]Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Ustün B, Stucki G: ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 2005, 37(4):212-218.
• [38][https:/ / ahsri.uow.edu.au/ content/ groups/ public/ @web/ @chsd/ @aroc/ documents/ doc/ uow133620.pdf] webcite The Australian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre (AROC) Annual Report: the state of rehabilitation in Australia in 2011 []
• [39]Lawton MP, Brody EM: Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969, 9(3):179-186.
• [40]Madden R, Fortune N, Cheeseman D, Mpofu E, Bundy A: Fundamental questions before recording or measuring functioning and disability. Disabil Rehabil 2013, 35(13):1092-1096.
• [41]Madden R, Marshall R, Race S: ICF and casemix models for healthcare funding: use of the WHO family of classifications to improve casemix. Disabil Rehabil 2013, 35(13):1074-1077.
• [42]New P, Cameron PA, Olver JH, Stoelwinder JU: Defining barriers to discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, classifying their causes, and proposed performance indicators for rehabilitation patient flow. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013, 94:201-208.
• [43]Shepperd S, McClaran J, Phillips C, Lannin N, Clemson L, McCluskey A, Cameron ID, Barras S: Discharge planning from hospital to home.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010: Issue 1. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD14000313.pub14651853
• [44]Allen J, Hutchinson AM, Brown R, Livingston PM: Quality care outcomes following transitional care interventions for older people from hospital to home: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014, 14:346. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Burton CR, Fargher E, Plumpton C, Roberts GW, Owen H, Roberts E: Investigating preferences for support with life after stroke: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res 2014, 14:63. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Mirzaei M, Aspin C, Essue B, Jeon Y-H, Dugdale P, Usherwood T, Leeder S: A patient-centred approach to health service delivery: improving health outcomes for people with chronic illness. BMC Health Serv Res 2013, 13:251. BioMed Central Full Text