Health Constructs and Measurement
IV. Personal/Social/Environmental Status
(Domains)
Functional Limitations, Impairment, and Disability
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
|
Medical Outcomes
Study 36-item Short Form Healthy Survey
(SF-36), Physical Functioning
subscale Ware, J.E.
& Sherbourne, C.D. (1992). The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey
(SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30
(6), 473-483. |
Assesses
health concept of physical functioning, defined as limitations in physical
activities because of health problems. Designed
for clinical practice & research, health policy eval, and general
population surveys. |
Physical
functioning (PFS) (10 items, 21 levels) is one of eight
subscales. |
Self-administration
by persons 14 years of age and older or for administration by a trained
interviewer in person or by phone (different forms are required for each).
Timing is present or current health. |
Ordinal scales
(Likert), summated ratings. Lower score indicates greater limitations. E.g.
High score on physical functioning indicates “able to perform all types of
physical activities including the most vigorous without limitations due to
health”. |
Tested on a
variety of patient populations. |
|
Used
corresponding full-length MOS scale as the criterion in testing. PFS:
3-level response continuum of presence and extent of physical limitations.
This subscale was retained uncut from MOS-LF, the parent scale. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Used extensively
with a variety of populations with disabilities. The Center for Research on
Women with Disabilities (CROWD) uses the SF-36 physical functioning scale in
studies of women with physical disabilities. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Functional
Systems Scale (FSS) Scheinberg,
L., Feldman, J., Ratzker, P., et al. (1986). Self-assessment of neurological
impairments in multiple sclerosis. Neurology, 36 (suppl 1), 284. |
Measures health
status for MS patients in eight areas of functioning. Total score can be
broken into three parts to represent categories of functional disability
(high, medium, and low). |
Measures
degree of difficulty in eight specific areas of function: · Weakness · Tremor · Double vision · Numbness · Bladder function · Memory · Spasticity · Ambulation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Schwartz, et al.
(1999) used this scale with patients with multiple sclerosis to determine the
impact of stress upon the course of the disease. Schwartz, C.E.,
Foley, F.W., and Rao, S.M., et al. (1999). Stress and course of disease in
multiple sclerosis. Behavioral Medicine, 25, 110-116. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Stanford Health
Assessment Questionnaire Functional Disability Index (Stanford HAQ) Fries,
J.F., Spitz, P., Kraines, R.G., and Holman, H.R. (1980). Measurement of
patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis and Rheum., 23, 137-145. Wolfe, F.,
Kleinheksel, S.M., Cathey, M.A, et al., (1988). The clinical value of the
Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire Functional Disability Index in
patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 15,
1480-14808. |
Disability
index of the HAQ assesses the degree of difficulty in eight functional areas.
Measures severity of disease or disability and functional limitations. |
Examines 8
dimensions of activities of daily living: Dressing
and grooming, getting up, eating, walking, hygiene, grip, reach, errands, and
chores. |
Self-report. |
Responses
for each area are scored from 0 (no difficulty) to 3 (inability to perform
task). A summated score for each of the 8 dimensions is averaged to derive
the total disability index (range: 0.0 to 3.0). |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The HAQ is widely
used in persons with a variety of conditions, including osteoarthritis (e.g.,
Lorig et al., 1989, Lorig et al., 1985)
and rheumatoid arthritis (e.g., Ward, 1994, Sarzi-Puttini, et al.,
1995). Smedstad, Kvien, Moum, and Vaglum (1995) used the Stanford HAQ in a
study of people with early rheumatoid arthritis to determine functional
disability. Lorig, K.,
Chastain, R.L., Ung, E., Shoor, S., and Holman, H., (1989). Development and
evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with
arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 32 (1), 37-44. Lorig, K., Sarzi-Puttini, P., Fiorini, T., Panni, B., et al.,
(2002). Correlation of
the score for subjective pain with physical disability, clinical and
radiographic scores in recent onset rheumatoid arthritis. BMC
Musculoskeletal Disorders, 3 (1), 18. Smedstad, L.M.,
Kvien, T.K., Moum, T., and Vaglum, P. (1995). Life events, psychosocial
factors, and demographic variables in early rheumatoid arthritis: Relations
to one-year changes in functional disability. The Journal of Rheumatology,
22 (12), 2218-2225. Ward, M.M.
(1994). Are patient self-report measures of arthritis activity confounded by
mood? A longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The
Journal of Rheumatology, 21 (6), 1046-1050. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Functional
Limitations, as used in the National Health Interview Survey |
|
|
|
Functional
limitations were defined as the presence of difficulties in at least one of
the following activities: ·
lifting
10 pounds ·
walking
up 10 steps without resting ·
walking
a quarter of a mile ·
standing
for about 20 minutes ·
bending
down from a standing position ·
reaching
over the head or reaching out ·
using
the fingers to grasp or handle something ·
holding
a pen or pencil |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
National Health Interview
Survey |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kurtze
Expanded Disability Status Scale Kurtze, J.
(1983). Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: An Expanded
Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33, 1444-1452. |
Includes the
Functional Systems Scale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Schwartz, et al.
(1999) used the Functional Systems Scale, a subset of this scale, with
patients with multiple sclerosis to determine the impact of stress upon the course
of the disease. Schwartz, C.E.,
Foley, F.W., and Rao, S.M., et al. (1999). Stress and course of disease in
multiple sclerosis. Behavioral Medicine, 25, 110-116. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Incapacity
Status Scale (ISS) (Kurtze,
J.F., (1981). A proposal for a uniform minimal record of disability in
multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurological Scandinavica, 64 (Supp. 87).
110-129. |
Measures
the severity of functional disability. Provides an objective measure of the
degree of functional limitation (process of not being able to perform common
activities or tasks such as bathing, dressing, and walking). |
None. |
Self-report |
16 items,
rated on a 5-point LIkert scale (0=normal functioning or no difficulty to 4=
complete inability, dependence, or loss of control). One item measures
comorbidity of other health conditions requiring medical treatment (0=no
significant medical conditions, 4=medical conditions requiring daily
attention by a physician or nurse). Scores range from 0 to 64. |
Persons with
multiple sclerosis. |
Cronbach’s
alpha = .87. |
Evidence
has been collected for construct validity. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The International
Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies, a group of multiple sclerosis
(MS) experts, endorsed the ISS for use in research on this population. The
scale has been widely used in studies of persons with MS. Stuifbergen, Seraphine, and Roberts (2000)
used this scale in a study of persons with multiple sclerosis titled Health
Promotion and Quality of Life in Chronic Illness; it was determined that the
ISS measured incapacity for the MS population. Harrison and Stuifbergen
(2001) used this scale in a study of disability, social support, and
depressive symptoms in mothers with multiple sclerosis. This questionnaire
has also been used in a study exploring secondary conditions and barriers to
health in polio survivors (Harrison & Stuifbergen, 2001). Harrison and
Stuifbergen report internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) in their study of
polio survivors as .78. Roberts and Stuifbergen (1998) also used the ISS in a
study of 936 participants with multiple sclerosis. They reported a range of 0
to 48, and an alpha coefficient of 0.87. Harrison, T., and
Stuifbergen, A., (2001). Barriers that further disablement: A study of
survivors of polio. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 33 (3), 160-166. Harrison, T., and
Stuifbergen, A., (2001). Disability, social support, and concern for
children: Depression in mothers with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Obstetric,
Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 31 (4), 444-453. Roberts, G.,
& Stuifbergen, A.K., (1998). Health appraisal models in multiple
sclerosis. Social Science in Medicine, 47 (2), 243-253. Stuifbergen, A.,
Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G., (2000). An explanatory model of health
promotion and quality of life in chronic illness. Nursing Research, 49
(3), 122-129. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Osteoporosis
Functional Disability Questionnaire (OFDQ) Helmes,
E., (2000). Function and disability or quality of life? Issues illustrated by
the Osteoporosis Functional Disability Questionnaire (OFDQ). Quality of
Life Research, 9, 755-761. |
Measures
major areas of function important to persons with osteoporosis. Also measures
quality of life. |
Five domains: pain (severity,
impact, and frequency or pattern, 8 items), depression (20 items from CES-D),
function in performing activities of daily living (ADLs) (26 items),
socialization and financial situation (2 items), and confidence in exercise
program (3 items). |
Self-report. |
59 items.
Scoring is based upon scores for each domain. Scale does not provide a total
score. |
Older
persons with spinal compression fractures resulting from osteoporosis, and
healthy controls. The older persons with osteoporosis sample was divided into
two groups: those who were regularly participating in exercise programs, and
those who were not participating. |
Acceptable
levels of reliability. Test-retest reliabilities of the subscales range from
0.76 to 0.91. Internal consistency reliabilities were lower in the group
participating in exercise programs than in persons not participating due to
restriction in range of scores. Values of coefficient alpha ranged from 0.72
to 0.75 for pain subscale, from 0.81 to 0.87 for CES-D subscale, and 0.96 to
0.98 for ADL subscale. |
Four out
of the five subscales discriminated between healthy controls and people with
compression fractures due to osteoporosis (confidence in the exercise program
did not discriminate). The ADL, pain, and depression subscales correlated with
ratings of severity of the spinal fractures. The OFDQ was sensitive to
changes over time resulting form participating in the exercise program. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Activity
Limitations |
Assesses
current activity limitations (IADLs in walking and mobility) and changes in
the number of activity limitations in mobility (ADLs). |
Four subsets of
questions: IADL limitations-walking, IADL limitations- mobility, Change in
ADLs- mobility, and Change in IADLS- mobility. |
Self-report.
Timing is current. |
IADL
limitations-walking: number of current IADLs with any difficulty, including
walking 2-3 blocks in community, getting around in community, shopping,
preparing meals, using phone, and managing medications. Change in
ADLs-mobility refer to change in number of ADLs with any difficulty including
getting around in residence, bathing, dressing/grooming, transferring,
eating, and using the toilet. Change in IADLs-mobility refers to change in
number of IADLs with any difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Health and
Activities Limitation Index (Livingston
and Ko) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Disability
Status Harrison, T.,
& Stuifbergen, A., (2001). Barriers that further disablement: A study of
survivors of polio. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 33 (3), 160-166. |
“Disability”
was defined in this study as the inability to perform social/societal roles. |
N/A |
Self-report
and current timing. |
Operationally
defined by asking about employment status. Dichotomous variable (employed or
unemployed); unemployed participants are categorized as disabled. |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Harrison, T., and
Stuifbergen, A., (2001). Barriers that further disablement: A study of
survivors of polio. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 33 (3), 160-166. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Assistance
required to accomplish daily activities |
|
|
Self-report,
present or current status. |
Range of 0
to 3, 0 = assistance needed all of the time 3= no
assistance needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
This
measure was used by Stuifbergen and Becker (1994) in a sample of 117 people
with disabilities. Stuifbergen,
A.K., and Becker, H.A., (1994). Predictors of health promoting lifestyles in
persons with disabilities. Research in Nursing and Health, 17, 3-13. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
International
Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH), World
Health Organization (1980). |
Based upon
the premise that there is no inherent relationship between disability and
handicap. Considers disability, impairment, and
handicap to be distinct categories; one may influence the other. (See
schematic representation below). |
Disease/condition
is the specific medical problem. Impairment
is resulting physiological impairment, such as physical (neuromuscular or
skeletal) impairment, visual, hearing, intellectual, or other impairments.
Disability refers to behavior, communication, personal care, locomotor
difficulties, body disposition, dexterity, and situational disabilities.
Handicap is the actual limitation or disadvantage experienced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Researchers at
the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities use the ICIDH basis as
part of the screening process for determining disability. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|||
|
Craig
Handicap Assessment & Reporting Technique original- (CHART) (original) Whiteneck,
Charlifue, Gerhart, Overholser, & Richardson (1992). Quantifying
Handicap: A New Measure of Long-Term Rehabilitation Outcomes. Archives of
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 73 (June), 519-526. |
Measures
“handicap” NOT disability. Measures inability to fulfill 1 or more roles that
are considered normal for age, gender, and culture. These include ability to
orient to surroundings, physical independence, mobility, occupation (relative
to age, sex and culture), social integration (participate and maintain
relationships), and economic self-sufficiency. Based upon assumption that there is no
inherent relationship between handicap, impairment, or disability |
Mobility (M), (9 items), Social Integration (SI), (6 items), Physical Independence (PI) (4 items) Occupation, (O), (7 items), & Economic Self-Sufficiency (ESS), (3
items). (note:
orientation was not operationalized in this analysis). |
Interview
tool (face-to-face or phone). Instrument can be mailed but data may be lost
in absence of interaction with interviewer providing consistent prompts. No
set time period but multiple measurements should be taken over course of
person’s lifetime. |
37 items
measuring “handicap”, with 100-point subscale for each dimension of handicap,
which can be interpreted individually or totaled to give overall index of
handicap. It is possible to earn >100 points for each subset, but max of
100 points is allowed, as 100 points indicates no handicap in that domain.
Scores below 100 indicate some level of handicap. |
n=135
patients with SCI, avg age 33 (range 16-74) with injuries >2 years to
assess psychometrics. Only 16% women, n=41 complete quads, n= 38 incomplete
quads, n=42 complete paras, n=14 incomplete paras. Norms established using
n=88 able-bodied friends or associates of same age and gender; 23% were women
and 77% male. Initial
application done with n = 342 former patients at Craig who have spinal cord
injuries for > 1 year. avg age = 34 yrs, range (15-80). Only 15% were
women. 60% had cervical injuries. |
High
test-retest reliability; r= .93 for total instrument. Subscales: PI: r=.92 M: r=.95 O: r=.89 ESS: r=.80 SI: r=.81 Family
members or other proxy for each SCI subject also asked CHART; subject-proxy
correlations were .83 for total CHART; good agreement betw ratings of
subjects & proxies achieved on all dimensions except SI, in which degree
of agreement found to be related to how closely the proxy knew the subject. PI: r=.80, M: r=.84 O: r=.81 ES: r=.69 SI: r=.28
(still p<.001) |
Validity
was determined by performance in differentiating groups of subjects globally
evaluated by rehab professionals as having high or low levels of handicap.;
signif dif found between 2 group’s (low or hi) mean total CHART scores (high
handicap x = 333, low-handicap x = 438, t=6.36, p<.001. 4 subscales were
also signif dif: PI: t=4.54, p<.001, M: t=3.89, p<.001, O: t=6.80,
p<.001, SI: t=2.02, p<.001; ESS not signif. Individual item analysis-
Rasch: adjusted test SD=1.21 (>8x greater than root-mean-square
calibration error of .15, indicating satisfactory separation of items along
variable of handicap. Rasch analysis of item fit: x=0.0, SD=1.5 (relatively
good fit of data to model). Only 2 items had item-fit t-value more than 2
(income and hours in school), indicating not always good match between
handicap & poverty, or low handicap and time spent in school. Rasch
demonstrated CHART is a well-calibrated linear scale, with good fit of both
items and persons to data. Items in
each subscale analyzed separately; all items fit in subscale cluster, (no
item had t-value for fit >1.2). Person-fit analysis also good match
(fit-statistic x =0.0, SD=1.2). |
|||
|
Other Disability Populations: |
Analysis
for the original CHART was conducted on various disability populations, including
SCI (Whiteneck, Tate, Charlifue, 1999, Boninger et al., 1998, Vogel, 1998,
Waters, 1998, Whiteneck, 1996) TBI (Corrigan, et al., 1998, Brooks, Gabella,
Hoffman, Sosin, & Whiteneck, 1997), stroke (Segal & Schall, 1995),
MS, burn, and amputee populations. These additional analyses indicate that
the CHART can be generalized to other disability populations. |
|||||||||
|
Craig
Handicap Assessment & Reporting Technique (CHART-R) Guide
for the Use of the CHART: Craig Handicap Assessment & Reporting Technique, Craig Hospital Research
Department, 3425 S Clarkson St. Englewood, CO 80110. |
CHART-R
added Cognitive Independence, which is basically the construct of orientation
that was never successfully operationalized in original measure. |
Cognitive Social Integration (SI), (6 items), Physical Independence (PI) (4 items) Occupation, (O), (7 items), & Economic Self-Sufficiency (ESS), (3
items). |
same |
Same as
above, with new subscale (CI) also contributing 100 points. |
|
|
|
|||
|
Craig
Handicap Assessment & Reporting Technique Short Form (CHART-SF) Craig
Handicap Assessment & Reporting Technique- Short Form (CHART-SF), Craig Hospital Research
Department, 3425 S Clarkson St. Englewood, CO 80110. Introduction
to the CHART Short Form. Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury
(COMBI); http://www.tbims.org/combi/chartsf |
The CHART-SF is a shortened version of the
CHART. Total of 19 items, compared to 32 in original CHART), with the same
subscales as the original CHART. (The CHART-SF uses 17 items from the
original 37-question chart, as well as 3 summary variables in the Social
Integration subscale.) |
Mobility (M), (3 items), Social Integration (SI), (6 items), & Physical Cognitive
independence, (CI),
(2 items), Occupation (O), 5
items), & Economic
Self-Sufficiency, (ESS), 2 items). |
Same as
CHART: Interview
tool (face-to-face or phone). Instrument can be mailed but data may be lost
in absence of interaction with interviewer providing consistent prompts. No
set time period but multiple measurements should be taken over course of
person’s lifetime. |
19 items total summation of scores. 100-point
subscale for each dimension of handicap, which can be interpreted
individually or totaled to give overall index of handicap. It is possible to
earn >100 points for each subset, but max of 100 points is allowed, as 100
points indicates no handicap in that domain. Scores below 100 indicate some
level of handicap. |
|
|
With 2
exceptions, the only variables that were selected to be in a subscale were
those that entered into a stepwise regression model together explaining over
90% of the variance. Items were re-scored so that each subscale still would
have a max of 100, but efforts were made to keep all the score weightings of
the variables proportionate to the original weightings. |
|||
|
Other Disability Populations: |
The main
analysis used data for participants in the CHART validation, n=1,110 with
various disabilities. SCI:
n=236; BI: n=242; MS: n=248; Stroke: n=223; Amputation: n=91; Burn: n=70. The
CHART-SF was then tested on 1800 persons in the BRFSS survey of CHART-SF
has also been used with disability populations in other countries: e.g.
Dijkers et al., (2002) compared SCI populations in Dijkers,
Yavuzer, Ergin, Weitzenkamp, & Whiteneck, (2002). A Tale of Two
Countries: Environmental Impacts on Social Participation After Spinal Cord
Injury. Spinal Cord, 40 (7), 351-362. |
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Perceived
Handicap Questionnaire (PHQ) Tate, D.,
Forcheimer, M., Maynard, F., & Dijkers, M., (1994). Predicting depression
and psychological distress in persons with spinal cord injury based on
indicators of handicap. American Journal of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 73 (3), 175-183. |
Measures
respondents’ perceived ability to function in comparison with others with
spinal cord injury and in comparison with nondisabled persons. Scores
represent measures of the respondents’ perception of the extent to which they
view themselves as “handicapped” along each of the CHART dimensions. |
|
Self-report. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Disability populations used: |
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description & Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Demands of
Illness Inventory (DOI) Woods,
N.F., Haberman, M.R., and |
|
Includes 5
items relating to “concern for children” |
|
0=not at
all 4=extremely |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Stuifbergen,
Seraphine, and Roberts (2000) used this scale in a study titled Health
Promotion and Quality of Life in Chronic Illness. Harrison and Stuifbergen (2001)
created a Concern for Children Scale based upon the five items relating to
concern for children in the DOI; the Concern for Children Scale was
administered to a group of mothers with MS. Cronbach’s alpha associated with
this scale was .79 in this population. Stuifbergen, A.,
Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G., (2000). An explanatory model of health
promotion and quality of life in chronic illness. Nursing Research, 49
(3), 122-129. Harrison, T.,
Stuifbergen, A., (2001). Disability, social support, and concern for
children: Depression in mothers with multiple sclerosis. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 31 (4), 444-453. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Acceptance
of Illness Scale Stuifbergen, A., Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G., (2000).
An explanatory model of health promotion and quality of life in chronic
illness. Nursing Research, 49 (3), 122-129. |
Measures
the degree to which an individual has accepted living with multiple sclerosis
(MS). |
None. |
Self-report,
current timing or present status. |
14 items,
Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Higher scores
indicate greater acceptance. |
Pilot
tested with five individuals with MS, administered to a sample of 834
participants with MS responding to a
health promotion survey. |
Internal
consistency reliability was 0.83 in a sample of 834 participants with MS. |
Reviewed
for content validity and pilot tested in five persons with MS. |
|
Disability populations used: |
Stuifbergen,
Seraphine, and Roberts (2000) developed this scale for use in a study of
people with multiple sclerosis titled Health Promotion and Quality of Life in
Chronic Illness. Stuifbergen, A.,
Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G., (2000). An explanatory model of health
promotion and quality of life in chronic illness. Nursing Research, 49
(3), 122-129. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description & Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Health and
Retirement Survey |
|
2-parts: 1 question asks
“currently working for pay”; second part assesses physical demands (physical
effort, lifting heavy loads, stooping kneeling, or crouching). |
|
2-parts: 1 question
asks “currently working for pay”; second part assesses physical demands using
three statements, a four-point Likert scale, and a nine-point score. |
|
|
|
|
Other populations used: |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Employment
|
|
|
Self-report,
present or current status. |
Dichotomous
variable (0=not employed, 1= employed). |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
This
measure was used by Stuifbergen and Becker (1994) in a sample of 117 people
with disabilities. Stuifbergen,
A.K., and Becker, H.A., (1994). Predictors of health promoting lifestyles in
persons with disabilities. Research in Nursing and Health, 17, 3-13. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Education |
|
|
Self-report,
present or current status. |
Range of 0
to 6, 0 = less
than 7th grade, 6= graduate degree. |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
This
measure was used by Stuifbergen and Becker (1994) in a sample of 117 people
with disabilities. Stuifbergen,
A.K., and Becker, H.A., (1994). Predictors of health promoting lifestyles in
persons with disabilities. Research in Nursing and Health, 17, 3-13. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Holmes and
Rahe Stressful Event Checklist Holmes,
T.H., and Rahe, R.H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
Psychosom Res., 11, 213-218. |
|
|
Asks about
43 life change events experienced in the past 6 months. |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Schwartz, et al.
(1999) used this scale with patients with multiple sclerosis to determine the
impact of stress upon the course of the disease. Schwartz, C.E.,
Foley, F.W., and Rao, S.M., et al. (1999). Stress and course of disease in
multiple sclerosis. Behavioral Medicine, 25, 110-116. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Life Event
Interview. (LEI) Miller,
P.M., & Salter, D.P. (1984). Is there a short-cut? Acta Psychiatr
Scand, 70, 417-427. |
Selected major
life events with the association of desirability of each event. |
|
Life
events during the past 12 months. |
List of 25
life events, with a scale of the desirability of each event. Events are
divided into desirable and undesirable, then summed in each category. |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Smedstad, Kvien,
Moum, and Vaglum (1995) used the Life Event Interview in a study of how life
events, psychosocial factors, and demographic variables are related to
changes in functional disability in people with early rheumatoid arthritis. Smedstad, L.M.,
Kvien, T.K., Moum, T., and Vaglum, P. (1995). Life events, psychosocial
factors, and demographic variables in early rheumatoid arthritis: Relations
to one-year changes in functional disability. The Journal of Rheumatology, 22
(12), 2218-2225. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Inventory
of Small Life Events (ISLE) Zautra, |
Frequency
counts of weekly occurrence of events (both desirable and undesirable) |
Several
domains (e.g. spouse or significant other, family members, friends and
acquaintenances, and employers, coworkers) |
Weekly
events |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
An abridged
version of the ISLE was used by Zautra, Zautra, A.J.,
Hoffman, J.M., Matt, K.S., et al., (1998). An examination of individual
differences in the relationship between interpersonal stress and disease
activity among women with rheumatoid arthritis. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
The Abuse
Assessment Screen (AAS) Soeken,
K.L., McFarlane, J., Parker, B., Lominack, M.C. (1998). Abuse Assessment
Screen: A clinical instrument to measure frequency, severity, and perpetrator
of abuse against women. Empowering Survivors of Abuse. J.C. Campbell,
ed. Sage. |
Brief
four-question instrument suitable for use in clinical settings. |
None. |
Interviewer-administered
(for screening purposes). |
4 items. |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The Center for
Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) has developed a measure to
supplement the AAS, the AAS-D, to measure disability-related violence. This
measures adds two additional disability-related violence questions to the
original 4-item measure. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Abuse
Survey Young,
M.E., Nosek, M.A., Howland, C., et al., (1997). Prevalence of abuse of women
with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 78, S34-S38. |
Part of a
larger survey on the health and well-being of women with physical
disabilities. Qualitative survey measuring emotional abuse, physical abuse,
and sexual abuse. |
|
|
80 variables,
two open-ended questions. If a woman reported having experienced abuse, she
was asked to indicate the type of abuse, relationship to perpetrator, and at
which age abuse began and ended. She was also asked to describe the
experience including frequency and conclusion of the abusive experience. |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The Center for
Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) developed a survey to measure the
various types of abuse in a large sample of women with and without physical
disabilities. Young, M.E.,
Nosek, M.A., Howland, C., et al., (1997). Prevalence of abuse of women with
physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
78, S34-S38. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
Social isolation
See II. Psychosocial
Measures: Social Support