Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators
Construct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators
复制标题
社区参与指标权量表的构建效度
作者：
Jessica Kersey;L. Terhorst;A. Heinemann;J. Hammel;Carolyn Baum;M. McCue;E. Skidmore
目的：本研究检验了社区参与指标的选举权量表的结构效度。设计：我们对康复结果横断面研究中收集的数据进行了二次分析。受试者：母研究包括 604 名患有慢性创伤性脑损伤、中风或脊髓损伤的社区居民。样本的平均年龄为 64.1 岁，三分之二为男性，其中少数族裔比例很高（n = 250，41.4%）。主要衡量标准： 选举权量表包含两个分量表：控制分量表和重要性分量表。我们检查了每个特许权子量表与参与、环境和损害衡量标准之间的相关性。当前的分析包括每个子量表至少完成 80% 项目的案例（控制子量表：n = 391；重要性子量表：n = 219）。使用多重插补来插补缺失值。结果：样本得分较高，表明选举权较差（对照分量表：M = 51.7；重要性分量表：M = 43.0）。两个分量表与参与测量的相关性最强（控制分量表：r = 0.56；重要性分量表：r = 0.52），与认知测量的相关性最弱（控制分量表：r = 0.03；重要性分量表：r = 0.03）。重要性分量表与抑郁症（r = 0.54）以及系统、服务和政策（r = 0.50）密切相关。两个分量表均与社会态度（控制分量表：r = 0.44；重要性分量表：r = 0.44）和社会支持（控制分量表：r = 0.49；重要性分量表：r = 0.41）相关。结论：我们发现了选举权量表和参与衡量标准之间趋同效度的证据，以及选举权量表和残疾相关损害衡量标准之间的区别效度的证据。分析还揭示了环境对选举结果的重要性。
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.
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.005
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Cantor, Joshua;Ashman, Teresa;Oswald, Jennifer
通讯作者：
Oswald, Jennifer