Turkish validity and reliability of the Activities of Daily Living Evaluation in Schoolchildren (ADL-E) Questionnaire

Abstract

Purpose: Activities of Daily Living- Schoolchildren (ADL-E) Questionnare is designed to assess activities of daily living in school-age children. The aim of study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the ADL-E Questionnare. Methods: This study is a metadological research. The parents of 412 children with typical development between the ages of 6 and 12 participated in the study. The ADL-E Questionnaire includes four different scales: three for basic activities of daily living, such as eating (20 questions), personal hygiene (29 questions) and clothing (17 questions), and one for general functionality (18 questions), which assesses the cognitive aspects required for performing basic activities of daily living. The questionnaire contains 84 questions in total. Construct validity was determined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s α coefficient. The test–retest reliability of the ADL-E subscale scores were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The mean age of the children was 9.511.40 years. 205 girls and 207 boys. Construct validity analysis revealed that the ADL-E had adequate fit. The Cronbach's α coefficient value of the ADL-E Questionnaire was excellent (0.816) for the overall questionnaire. Except for the oral sensitivity and executive functions sub-items, all values in the sub-item-total correlation results were greater than 0.30. The test-retest values of the ADL-E Questionnaire were between 0.755-0.949. Conclusion: The ADL-E Questionnaire was found to be valid and reliable in Turkish for the assessment and monitoring of ADL performance of Turkish children.

Keywords

• Activities of daily living
• Child health
• Executive functions

Okul Çocuklarında Günlük Yaşam Aktivitelerini Değerlendirme (GYA-Okul Çocukları) Anketinin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğiı

Abstract

Amaç: Günlük Yaşam Aktiviteleri- Okul Çocukları (GYA-Okul Çocukları) Anketi, okul çağındaki çocukların günlük yaşam aktivitelerini değerlendirmek için tasarlanmıştır. Çalışmanın amacı, GYA-Okul Çocukları Anketi’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini araştırmaktı. Yöntem: Bu çalışma metadolojik bir araştırmadır. Çalışmaya 6-12 yaş aralığında tipik gelişim gösteren 412 çocuğun ailesi katıldı. GYA-Okul Çocukları Anket’i dört farklı ölçek içermektedir: üçü yemek yeme (20 soru), kişisel hijyen (29 soru) ve giyim (17 soru) gibi temel günlük yaşam aktiviteleri için ve biri de temel günlük yaşam aktivitelerini gerçekleştirmek için gereken bilişsel yönleri değerlendiren genel işlevsellik (18 soru). Ankette toplam 84 soru bulunmaktadır. Yapı geçerliliği, açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanılarak belirlendi. İç tutarlılık Cronbach'ın α katsayısı kullanılarak incelendi. GYA-Okul Çocukları Anketi alt ölçek puanlarının test-tekrar test güvenilirliği sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: 205 kız ve 207 erkek çocuğun yaş ortalamaları 9,511,40 idi. Yapı geçerliliği analizi GYA-Okul Çocukları Anketi’nin yeterli uyuma sahip olduğunu ortaya koydu. GYA-Okul Çocukları Anketi’nin Cronbach α katsayı değeri anketin geneli için mükemmeldi (0,816). Ağız hassasiyeti ve yürütücü işlevler alt maddeleri hariç, alt madde-toplam korelasyon sonuçlarındaki tüm değerler 0,30'dan büyüktü. GYA-Okul Çocukları Anketinin test-tekrar test değerleri 0,755-0,949 arasındaydı. Sonuç: GYA-Okul Çocukları Anketi Türk çocuklarının GYA performansının değerlendirilmesi ve izlenmesi için Türkçe geçerli ve güvenilir bulundu

Keywords

• Günlük yaşam aktiviteleri
• Çocuk sağlığı

References

1. American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process 3. ed. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2014; 68: 1-48.
2. James S, Ziviani J, Boyd R. A systematic review of activities of daily living measures for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014; 56(3): 233-244.
3. Barrios-Fernandez S, Gozalo M, Garcia-Gomez A, et al. A novel tool to assess basic activities of daily living in Spanish preschoolers. Children. 2021; 8(6): 496.
4. Gantschnig BE, Fisher AG, Page J, et al. Diferences in activities of daily living (ADL) abilities of children across world regions: A validity study of the assessment of motor and process skills: ADL diferences in children across world regions. Child Care Health Dev. 2015; 41: 230-238.
5. Günal A, Bumin G, Huri M. The efects of motor and cognitive impairments on daily living activities and quality of life in children with autism. J Occup Ther Sch Early Interv. 2019; 12: 1-11.
6. Summers J, Larkin D, Dewey D. Activities of daily living in children with developmental coordination disorder: Dressing, personal hygiene, and eating skills. Hum Mov Sci. 2008; 27: 215-229.
7. Barrios-Fernández S, Gozalo M, García-Gómez A, et al. A new assessment for activities of daily living in spanish schoolchildren: A preliminary study of its psychometric properties. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(8):2673-2689.
8. Beaussart ML, Barbarot S, Mauger C, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of executive functions in preschool and school-age children with neurofibromatosis Type 1. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2018; 24: 977-994.

9. Gray-Burrows K, Taylor N, O’Connor D, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the executive function-health behaviour relationship. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2019; 7: 253-268.
10. Papazian O, Alfonso I, Luzondo RJ. Executive function disorders. Rev. Neurol. 2006; 42: 45-50.
11. Martos Pérez J, Paula Pérez I. An approach to the executive functions in autism spectrum disorder. Rev. Neurol. 2011; 52: 147-153.
12. Collette F, Hogge M, Salmon E, et al. Exploration of the neural substrates of executive functioning by functional neuroimaging. Neuroscience 2006;139: 209-221.
13. Estévez González A, García Sánchez C, Barraquer i Bordas L. Frontal lobes: the executive brain. Rev. Neurol. 2000; 31: 566-577.
14. Hofmann W, Schmeichel B, Baddeley A. Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012; 16: 174-180.
15. McMahon K, Anand D, Morris-Jones M, et al. A path from childhood sensory processing disorder to anxiety disorders: The mediating role of emotion dysregulation and adult sensory processing disorder symptoms. Front Integr Neurosci. 2019; 13: 1-11.
16. Martini R, Cramm H, Egan M, et al. Scoping review of self-regulation: What are occupational therapists talking about? Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2016; 70: 7006290010p1-7006290010p15.
17. Howard SJ, Vasseleu E. Self-regulation and executive function longitudinally predict advanced learning in preschool. Front Psychol. 2020; 11: 49.
18. Berdien W Van der Linde, Jaap J van Netten, Bert Otten, et al. Activities of daily living in children with developmental coordination disorder: Performance, learning, and participation. Physical Therapy. 2015; 95(11):1496-1506,
19. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH, et al. Pediatric evaluation of disability inventory: Development, standardization, and administration manual. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center Inc, and PEDI Research Group; 1992.
20. Ketalaar M, Dahmen A, Vermeer J, et al. Functional motor abilities of children with cerebral palsy: A systematic literature review of assessment measures. Clin Rehabil. 1998;12(5):369-380.
21. Jang JS, Jeon JY, Kim H, et al. Validity and reliability of functional independence measure for children (WeeFIM) for children with cerebral palsy. Inquiry. 2022; 59: 00469580211072454.
22. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94-104.
23. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick 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: 539-549.
24. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, et al. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Front Public Health. 2018; 6:149.
25. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, et al. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educ Res. 2006; 99(6): 323-338.
26. Kline P. A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design. New York: Methuen; 1986.
27. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2017;16(4):346.
28. Kural B, Semih K. Factors affecting toilet training in children: A 10 year experience [Çocuklarda tuvalet eğitimini etkileyen faktörler: 10 yıllık deneyim]. Journal of Child. 2022; 22(3): 178-184.
29. Oğuz F, Eren T. Toilet training in healthy children [Sağlıklı çocuklarda tuvalet eğitimi]. TJTFP. 2014;5(3): 13-18.
30. Yavuz CM, Başak K. Evaluation of dietary habits and nutritional status in adolescence period school children. Jotags, 2019; 7(1): 225-243.
31. World Health Organization (WHO). The health of young people: A challenge and promise. 1-4. Geneva: WHO.1993.
32. Öztürkler M, Güngör AE. Evaluation of the relationships between depression and nutritional knowledge, dietary habits and eating attitudes in adolescents. GNJ. 2020; 5(9): 50-57.
33. Foster BA, Hale D. Perceptions of weight and health practices in hispanic children: A mixed-methods study. Int J Pediatr, 2015:761515.
34. Lundahl A, Kidwell KM, Nelson TD. Parental underestimates of child weight: a metaanalysis. Pediatric. 2014;133(3): e689-703.
35. Rietmeijer-Mentink M, Paulis WD, van Middelkoop M, et al. Difference between parental perception and actual weight status of children: a systematic review. Matern Child Nutr. 2013;9(1):3-22.
36. Eckstein KC, Mikhail LM, Ariza AJ, et al. Parents' perceptions of their child's weight and health. Pediatrics. 2006; 117(3):681-690.
37. Aslan F, Şahin NE. Determination of parental view on feeding patterns and body weights of children. Gümüşhane Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2017; 6(1): 20-28.
38. Özdemir MB. Değişen dünyada yeni bir ebeveynlik yaklaşımı: Helikopter ebeveynlik. Alanyazın. 2023; 4(1): 21-31.
39. Shoup R, Gonyea RM, Kuh GD. Helicopter parents: Examining the impact of highly involved parents on student engagement and educational outcomes [Conference presentation]. 49th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Atlanta, Georgia. 2009.