Generation and Content Validation of Mobility Domains and Item Pool for Community-dwelling Individuals

Natarajan Manikandan, K.B Kumar, B Rajashekhar

Abstract


Mobility disability can affect a wide range of activities, from difficulty in turning in bed to problems of riding a vehicle. The existing scales do not include all the relevant items for mobility within the community. There is therefore a strong need to develop a scale with items which are comprehensive and culturally relevant to community-dwelling individuals.

Purpose: This study was conducted to generate the mobility domains and item pool for community-dwelling individuals, and to validate the content.

Method: The method includedextensive research into literature on existing mobility scales, and direct interviews with 20 persons with chronic mobility disability who livewithin their community. The generated items were grouped under the relevant domains and subjected to content validation by 10 experts.Items were judged on the basis of relevance, and acceptance of the item or domain was conditional on a70% minimum level of agreement between the experts.

Results: Ninety-nine items and 14 domains were generated by the literature search and direct interviews. The items were grouped under the 14 domains,according to their relevance and purpose. Content validation resulted in the elimination of 44 items and 5 domains as per the criteria for agreement. Items and domains were also modified to improve relevance and reduce ambiguity.

Conclusion: A comprehensive mobility item pool for community-dwelling individuals, with items ranging from simple to the most challenging tasks under the proposed domains, has been generated and content validated. The development of a new mobility disability scale which uses these items, and evaluation of its psychometric properties is recommended.

Limitation: Confirmatory factor analysis could not be done to evaluate the fit of items under proposed domains.

Keywords


Mobility disability; domains; dimensions; psychometric properties

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Salbach NM, Finch L,Wood-Dauphinee SL(2003). The stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM): a comparison with other measures used to evaluate effects of stroke and rehabilitation. Physical Therapy; 83: 617-630. PMid:12837123

Baer HR, Wolf SL (2001).Modified emory functional ambulation profile: an outcome measure for the rehabilitation of poststroke gait dysfunction. Stroke; 32: 973-979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.32.4.973. PMid:11283399

Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A (1997). SCIM-spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord; 35 (12): 850-856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100349

Collen F, Wade D, Robb G, Bradshaw C (1991). The Rivermead mobility index: a further development of the Rivermead motor assessment. Disability & Rehabilitation; 13: 50-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03790799109166684

Corrigan R, McBurney H (2008). Community ambulation: environmental impacts and assessment inadequacies. Disability & Rehabilitation; 30 (19): 1411-1419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638280701654542. PMid:18720122

Downe‐Wamboldt B (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Healthcare for women international; 13 (3): 313-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07399339209516006. PMid:1399871

Granger C, Cotter A, Hamilton B, Fieldler R, Hens M (1990). Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; 71: 870-875. PMid:2222154

Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-SorensenF, Grimby G, Marincek C, Phillips S, Ring H, Tesio L,Thonnard J-L (2001). The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine; 33 (6): 273-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/165019701753236464. PMid:11766957

Hauser S L, Dawson DM, Lehrich JR, Beal MF, Kevy SV, Propper RD, Mills JA, Weiner HL (1983). Intensive immunosuppression in progressive multiple sclerosis. New England Journal of Medicine; 308: 173-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198301273080401. PMid:6294517

Howe J, Inness E, Venturini A, Williams J, Verrier M (2006). The community balance and mobility scale - a balance measure for individuals with traumatic brain injury. Clinical Rehabilitation; 20: 885-895. PMid:17008340

Kollen B, Van De Port I, Lindeman E, Twisk J, Kwakkel G (2005). Predicting improvement in gait after stroke - a longitudinal prospective study. Stroke; 36: 2676-2680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000190839.29234.50. PMid:16282540

Patla AE (2001). Mobility in complex environments: implications for clinical assessment and rehabilitation. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy; 25 (3): 82-90.

Patla AE, Shumway-Cook A (1999). Dimensions of mobility: defining the complexity and difficulty associated with community mobility. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity; 7: 7-19.

Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B (1989).Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; 42 (8): 703-709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6

Shumway-Cook A, Patla AE, Stewart A, Ferrucci L, Ciol MA, Guralnik JM (2003). Environmental components of mobility disability in community-living older persons. J Am GeriatrSoc; 51: 393-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51114.x. PMid:12588584

Smith R (1994). Validation and reliability of the elderly mobility scale. Physiotherapy; 80 (11): 744-747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(10)60612-8

Stanko E, Goldie P, Nayler M(2001). Development of a new mobility scale for people living in the community after stroke: content validity. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy; 47: 201-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60267-1

Stewart G, Kidd D, Thompson A (1995). The assessment of handicap: an evaluation of the environmental status scale. Disability & Rehabilitation; 17 (6): 312-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638289509166652. PMid:7579482

Ware JE Jr (1987). Standards for validating health measures: definition and content. Journal of Chronic Diseases; 40 (6): 473-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90003-8

Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care; 30 (6): 473-483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002. PMid:1593914

Weiss CO, Hoenig HM, Fried LP (2007). Compensatory strategies used by older adults facing mobility disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; 88 (9): 1217-1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.007. PMid:17826472

World Health Organisation (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. WHO, Geneva (Switzerland).

Yong V (2012). Mobility limitations. In: JH Stone, M Blouin, editors. International Encyclopaedia of Rehabilitation. Available from: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/259/




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5463/dcid.v1i1.285

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2015 Natarajan Manikandan, K.B Kumar, B Rajashekhar

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Supported by:

netherlandsleprosyrelief_logo_rgb_-_new_logo_2014_120CBMlightfortheworld_logo_rgb_-_new_logo_2014_120     

© Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development