Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Responsiveness, construct and criterion validity of the Personal Care-Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART)

Authors: Susan W. Darzins, Christine Imms, Nora Shields, Nicholas F. Taylor

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Personal Care-Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) was designed to measure participation restrictions in activities of daily living required for community life. Rasch analysis has confirmed that the PC-PART contains two unidimensional scales providing interval-level measurement: the Self Care and Domestic Life scales. This study investigated validity and responsiveness of these PC-PART scales using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) approach.

Methods

Thirteen hypotheses about Self Care and Domestic Life scale scores were established prior to conducting the analyses. Data from a prospective randomized controlled trial of additional (weekend) inpatient rehabilitation in Melbourne, Australia, were used. The 996 participants had a mean (SD) age of 74 (13) years and were admitted with orthopaedic (n = 581), neurological (n = 203) or other disabling impairments (n = 212). Self Care and Domestic Life scores were compared to functional independence (FIM), comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index), whether activities of daily living goals were met, and discharge destination.

Results

Low to moderate correlations between FIM and PC-PART scales’ scores supported hypotheses that the PC-PART measures a different construct from functional independence: Self Care r s -0.52(95 % CI -.46 to -.57) and Domestic Life r s -0.32(95 % CI -.25 to -.38). The scales had low to moderate discriminative ability for discharge destination, with the area under the curve for Self Care, 0.70 (95 % CI 0.62-0.78), and Domestic Life, 0.72 (95 % CI 0.64-0.80). The discharge to community living cut-off scores for Self Care: 5.50 (sensitivity .83, specificity .53) and Domestic Life: 7.50 (sensitivity .75, specificity .60), represented patients having no participation restrictions. Change scores from admission to discharge demonstrated larger effect sizes for the Self Care (1.67) and Domestic Life (1.50) scales than for the FIM (1.10), supporting hypotheses about responsiveness. Ten of the 13 hypotheses were supported.

Conclusions

This study provided evidence supporting construct validity, criterion validity and responsiveness of the PC-PART Self Care and Domestic Life scales for inpatient rehabilitation. Clinicians, managers and researchers who wish to measure the patterns and extent of people’s participation restrictions in activities of daily living and the associated burden of care, before and/or after intervention, can be somewhat confident about the PC-PART’s validity and responsiveness for this purpose.

Trial registration

Data used in this research were gathered during a registered randomized controlled trial: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000973​213.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Bilbao A, Kennedy C, Chatterji S, Ustün B, Barquero JLV, Barth JT. The ICF: applications of the WHO model of functioning, disability and health to brain injury rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation. 2003;18:239–50.PubMed
2.
Desrosiers J. Muriel Driver Memorial Lecture. Participation and occupation. Can J Occup Ther. 2005;72:195–204.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Dijkers MP. Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:S5–S16.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Madden R, Fortune N, Cheeseman D, Mpofu E, Bundy A. Fundamental questions before recording or measuring functioning and disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1092–6.PubMedCrossRef
5.
World Health Organisation. The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001.
6.
Jelsma J. Use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a literature survey. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1–12.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Whiteneck G, Dijkers MP. Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:S22–35.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Heinemann AW, Tulsky D, Dijkers M, Brown M, Magasi S, Gordon W, et al. Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:S72–6.PubMedCrossRef
9.
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;66:2335–45.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Coster W, Law M, Bedell GM, Khetani M, Cousins M, Teplicky R. Development of the participation and environment measure for children and youth: conceptual basis. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2012;34:238–46.CrossRef
11.
Magasi S, Post MW. A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:S17–28.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Mallinson T, Hammel J. Measurement of participation: intersecting person, task, and environment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:S29–33.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Noreau L, Boschen K. Intersection of participation and environmental factors: a complex interactive process. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:S44–53.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Darzins P. PC-PART: Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool user’s manual. Melbourne: PART Group; 2004. Partgroup@bigpond.com.
15.
Francis J. How to use the PC-PART to guide in-patient rehabilitation. Australia: The PART Group; 2004. p. 23. PARTgroup@bigpond.com.
16.
Vertesi A, Darzins P, Lowe S, McEvoy E, Edwards M. Development of the Handicap Assessment and Resource Tool (HART). Can J Occup Ther. 2000;67:120–7.PubMedCrossRef
17.
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;71:108–13.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Uniform Data Systems for Medical Rehabilitation. Adult FIM Workshop: Participant Manual Version 5.3 (Australia). Buffalo (NY): State University of New York at Buffalo; 2014.
19.
Mahoney F, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:62.
20.
Moats G. Discharge decision-making, enabling occupations, and client-centred practice. Can J Occup Ther. 2007;74:91–101.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Moreland JD, Depaul VG, Dehueck AL, Pagliuso SA, Yip DWC, Pollock BJ, et al. Needs assessment of individuals with stroke after discharge from hospital stratified by acute Functional Independence Measure score. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:2185–95.PubMedCrossRef
22.
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. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2013;94:201–8.CrossRef
23.
24.
Moss JE, Flower CL, Houghton LM, Moss DL, Nielsen DA, Taylor DM. A multidisciplinary Care Coordination Team improves emergency department discharge planning practice. Med J Aust. 2002;177:435–9.PubMed
25.
Veillette N, Demers L, Dutil E, McCusker J. Development of a functional status assessment of seniors visiting emergency department. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;48:205–12.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
27.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
Darzins S, Imms C, Di Stefano M. Measurement properties of the personal care participation assessment and resource tool: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:265–81.PubMedCrossRef
31.
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;68:334–43.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Darzins S, Imms C, Di Stefano M, Taylor N, Pallant J. Evaluation of the internal construct validity of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) using Rasch analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:543.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
33.
Taylor NF, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Shields N, Peiris C, Sullivan N, et al. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
34.
Peiris C, Shields N, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Taylor NF. Additional Saturday rehabilitation improves functional independence and quality of life and reduces length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2013;11:198.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Peiris C, Shields N, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Taylor NF. Correction: Additional Saturday rehabilitation improves functional independence and quality of life and reduces length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2013;11:262.PubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Hamilton BB, Granger CV. Disability outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Phys Ther. 1994;74:484–503.
37.
Uniform Data Systems for Medical Rehabilitation. Adult FIM Workshop: Participant Manual Version 5.1 (Australia). Buffalo (NY): State University of New York at Buffalo; 2008.
38.
Heinemann AW, Ehrlich-Jones L, Moore J: Rehabilitation Measures Database, Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Medical Social Sciences Informatics group, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. vol. 2014; 2013.
39.
UDSMR Adult FIM Workshop - Participant Manual, Version 5.2 (Australia). Buffalo, NY14214: State University of New York at Buffalo; 2012.
40.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Sharabiani M, Aylin P, Bottle A. Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data. Med Care. 2012;50:1109–18.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Quan H, Li B, Couris C, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, et al. Updating and Validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Score for Risk Adjustment in Hospital Discharge Abstracts Using Data From 6 Countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:676–82.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam: Executive Board of VU University Amsterdam; 2010.
44.
Cohen JW. Statistical power analysisfor the behavioural Sciences, 2nd edn, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbum Associates;1988.
45.
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
46.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
47.
Clemson L, Bundy A, Unsworth C, Singh MF. Validation of the modified assessment of living skills and resources, an IADL measure for older people. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2009;31:359–69.CrossRef
48.
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;21:127–41.PubMedCrossRef
49.
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;73:519–26.PubMed
50.
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;17:293–302.PubMedCrossRef
51.
52.
53.
Darzins P, McEvoy E, Lowe S, Vertesi A, Brock C, Edwards M, et al. Reliability and Validity of the Handicap Assessment and Resource Tool (HART). Quebec, Canada: The Canadian Association on Gerontology (CAG) Conference; 1996.
Metadata
Title
Responsiveness, construct and criterion validity of the Personal Care-Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART)
Authors
Susan W. Darzins
Christine Imms
Nora Shields
Nicholas F. Taylor
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0322-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

The psychometric performance of generic preference-based measures for patients with pressure ulcers

Review

Patient reported outcome measures for visual impairment after stroke: a systematic review

Research

Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) for patients with chronic pain in Mainland China

Research article

Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for stroke patients

Research Article

An up-date on health-related quality of life in myasthenia gravis -results from population based cohorts

Research Article

Are all health gains equally important? An exploration of acceptable health as a reference point in health care priority setting