Adaptation of the Keele Assessment of Participation into Turkish: Validity and Reliability Studies

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the current study is to adapt the Keele Assessment of Participation into Turkish to assess the participation of individuals aged 50 and over and to conduct its validity and reliability studies Method: The study included 150 individuals between the ages of 50 and 78 who came to Izmir Palmiye Shopping Center between February 2018 and April 2018, who could read and write in Turkish. All the participants were administered the Turkish version of Keele Assessment of Participation, Socio-demographic Questionnaire Form, Impact on Participation and Autonomy, Reintegration to Normal Living Index and Short Form 36 Quality of Life Questionnaire. For the reliability, test-retest reliability, item-total correlation coefficient, Kuder Richradson-20 and Cronbach’s Alpha (α) analyses were conducted. For the construct validity, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted and for the concurrent validity, its correlations with Impact on Participation and Autonomy, Reintegration to Normal Living Index and Short Form 36 Quality of Life Questionnaire were examined. Results: For the reliability, the test-retest correlation coefficient was found to be r=0.631; p<0.01, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was found to be 0.655, Kuder Richardson-20 coefficient was found to be 0.655 and item-total score correlation coefficients were found to be ranging from 0.232 to 0.506. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the questionnaire has a single factor. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the factor loadings of the questionnaire are suitable. In the concurrent validity, the highest correlation with the Turkish version of Keele Assessment of Participation was found for, Impact on Participation and Autonomy’s sub-group of Impact on Participation and Autonomy 1.5 (r=-0.467; p<0.001). Conclusion: Turkish version of Keele Assessment of Participation was found to be valid and reliable measurement tool to be used to assess the social participation of individuals aged 50 and over.

Keywords

• Keele Assesment of Participation
• Social Participation
• Validity and Reliability
• Turkish version

Keele Katılım Değerlendirmesinin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, 50 yaş ve üstü bireylerin yaşam kalitesi ve katılımlarını değerlendirilmesi için Keele Katılım Değerlendirmesi’nin Türkçe uyarlamasının yapılması, geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin belirlenmesidir. Yöntem: Çalışma, İzmir Palmiye Alışveriş Merkezine Şubat 2018-Nisan 2018 tarihleri arasında gelen, Türkçe okuma-yazma bilen, 50-78 yaş arasında olan 150 birey dahil edilmiştir. Tüm bireylere Keele Katılım Değerlendirmesi, Sosyodemografik Soru Formu, Katılım ve Otonomi Etki Anketi, Normal Yaşama Yeniden Katılım Endeksi ve Kısa Form-36 Yaşam Kalitesi Anketi uygulanmıştır. Güvenirlik için test-tekrar test güvenirliği ve iç tutarlılık analizleri yapılmıştır. Yapı geçerliği için açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve kriter geçerliği için Katılım ve Otonomi Etki Anketi, Normal Yaşama Yeniden Katılım Endeksi, Kısa Form-36 Yaşam Kalitesi Anketi’nin alt gruplarıyla korelasyon analiziyle incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Test-tekrar test korelasyon katsayısı 0.631; p<0.01, Cronbach alfa 0.655, madde toplam puan korelasyon katsayıları 0.232 ile 0.506 arasında bulunmuştur. Açıklayıcı faktör analizinde anketin tek faktörlü yapısı olduğu bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle de anketin tek faktörlü model yapısı doğrulanmıştır. Keele Katılım Değerlendirmesi’nin kriter geçerliliğine göre, Keele Katılım Değerlendirmesi’nin, Katılım ve Otonomi Etki Anketi, Normal Yaşama Yeniden Katılım Endeksi, Kısa Form-36 Yaşam Kalitesi anketlerle korelasyonun olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Keele Katılım Değerlendirmesi’nin Türkçe versiyonu 50 yaş ve üstü bireylerin sosyal katılımını değerlendirmede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Keele Katılım Değerlendirmesi
• Sosyal Katılım
• Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik
• Türkçe versiyon

References

1. Mutlu A, Bugusan S, Kara O. Impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health model in children with ambulatory cerebral palsy. Saudi Medical Journal. 2017;38(2): 176–185. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.2.16079
2. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) 2001. www.who.int. Retrieved September 5, 2021, from https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health
3. Anaby D, Miller WC, Eng JJ, Jarus T, Noreau L, Group PR. Participation and well-Being Among Older Adults Living with Chronic Conditions. Social Indicators Research.2011;100(1):171–183. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11205-010-9611-x.
4. Fu C, Li Z, Mao Z. Association between Social Activities and Cognitive Function among the Elderly in China: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(2): 231. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijerph15020231.
5. Law M. Participation in the Occupations of Everyday Life. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2002; 56(6): 640–649. https://doi.org/ 10.5014/ajot.56.6.640.
6. Wilkie R, Peat G, Thomas E, Hooper H, Croft PR. The Keele Assessment of Participation: A New Instrument to Measure Participation Restriction in Population Studies. Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Examination of its Psychometric Properties. Quality of Life Research. 2005; 14(8): 1889–1899. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11136-005-4325-2
7. Vergauwen K, Huijnen IPJ, Kos D, Van de Velde D, van Eupen I, Meeus M. Assessment of activity limitations and participation restrictions with persons with chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2014; 37(19):1706–1716. https://doi.org/ 10.3109/09638288.2014.978507.
8. Stevelink SAM, Terwee CB, Banstola N, van Brakel WH. Testing the psychometric properties of the Participation Scale in Eastern Nepal. Quality of Life Research. 2012; 22(1): 137–144. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11136-012-0116-8.

9. Eyssen IC, Steultjens MP, Dekker J, Terwee CB. A Systematic Review of Instruments Assessing Participation: Challenges in Defining Participation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2011; 92(6): 983–997. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.006
10. Davis AM, Palaganas MP, Badley EM, Gladman DD, Inman RD, Gignac MA. Measuring participation in people with spondyloarthritis using the social role participation questionnaire. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2011; 70(10):1765–1769. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/ard.2010.149211.
11. Thomas E, Wilkie R, Peat G, Hill S, Dziedzic K, Croft P.The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project – NorStOP: Prospective, 3-year study of the epidemiology and management of clinical osteoarthritis in a general population of older adults. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2004; 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-5-2.
12. Hermsen LAH, Terwee CB, Leone SS, van der Zwaard B, Smalbrugge M, Dekker J, Wilkie R. Social participation in older adults with joint pain and comorbidity; testing the measurement properties of the Dutch Keele Assessment of Participation. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(8): e003181. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003181.
13. Demir GT, Cicioğlu Hİ. Motivation Scale for Participation in Physical Activity (MSPPA): A study of validity and reliability. Fiziksel Aktiviteye Katılım Motivasyonu Ölçeği (FAKMÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Human Sciences. 2018; 15(4):2479–2492. Retrieved from https://www.jhumansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/5585
14. Kalaycı Ş. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti, Ankara. 4. Baskı. 2009.
15. Kurt M. Impact on Partıcıpatıon and Autonomy Questıonnaıre Türkçeye Adaptasyon, Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması (Impact on Partıcıpatıon and Autonomy Questıonnaire Turkish Adaptation, Validity and Reliability Study) (Ph.D. dissertation).Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. 2014.
16. Cardol M, de Haan RJ, de Jong BA, van den Bos GA, de Groot IJ. Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2001; 82(2):210–216. https://doi.org/ 10.1053/apmr.2001.18218.
17. Cardol M, Beelen A, van den Bos GA, de Jong BA, de Groot IJ, de Haan RJ. Responsiveness of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.2002; 83(11): 1524–1529. https://doi.org/ 10.1053/apmr.2002.35099.
18. Demirdel S. “Amputasyondan Sonra Normal Yaşama Yeniden Katılım Sürecinin Yaşam Kalitesi ve Fonksiyonel Düzey ile İlişkisinin Araştırılması (Investigation of the Relationship of Reintegration to Normal Living Process with Quality of Life and Functional Level after Amputation).” (Master’s dissertation). Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.2012.
19. Demirdel S, Bayramlar K. Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Reintegration to Normal Living Index in Amputees. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health. 2020; 40(3):151–58. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1539449220905794.
20. Nissen SJ, Newman WP. Factors influencing reintegration to normal living after amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1992; 73(6): 548–551. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1622303/
21. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir O, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. Kısa Form-36 (SF-36)'nın Türkçe Versiyonunun Güvenilirliği ve Geçerliliği (Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of Short Form-36 (SF-36). Ilac ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999; 12(2):102–6.
22. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care.1992; 30(6): 473–483. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1593914/
23. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000; 25(24): 3186–91. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
24. Noble H, Smith J. Issues of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Research. Evidence Based Nursing. 2015; 18(2): 34–35. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/eb-2015-102054.
25. Bartlett MS. (1950). Tests of Significance in Factor Analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology.1950; 3(2):77–85. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x.
26. Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education. 2017; 48(6): 1273–1296. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
27. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed.London: SAGE Publications.2019.
28. Suhr DD. “Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis?” 2006; 200–231 In: Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
29. Wilkie R, Jordan JL, Muller S, Nicholls E, Healey EL, van der Windt DA. Measures of social function and participation in musculoskeletal populations: Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA), Keele Assessment of Participation (KAP), Participation Measure for Post-Acute Care (PM-PAC), Participation Objective, Participation S. Arthritis Care & Research. 2001; 63(11):325–336. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/acr.20641.
30. Post MW. What to Do with ‘Moderate’ Reliability and Validity Coefficients?. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2016; 97(7):1051–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.04.001.
31. Büyüköztürk Ş. Faktör Analizi: Temel Kavramlar ve Ölçek Geliştirmede Kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 2002; 32(32): 470–483. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kuey/issue/10365/126871
32. Meydan CH, Şeşen H. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamalari (Structural Equation Modeling AMOS Applications). Ankara: Detay Press. 2011.