Validity and Reliability of the Physical Activity Scale for the Physical Disabilities in patients with Spinal Cord Injury

The original article was published on December 30, 2023. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sauhsd/article/1322366

Abstract

Objective: To test the validity and reliability of the Physical Activity Scale for the Physical Disabilities in patients with spinal cord injury. Methods: 52 patients with spinal cord injury were included in the study. Demographic and clinical information of the patients were questioned with the patient evaluation form. Physical activity levels were evaluated with the Physical Activity Scale for the Physical Disabilities. Functional Independence Scale and EuroQoL Quality of Life Scale were used to test the validity and reliability of the Physical Activity Scale for the Physical Disabilities. Results: The average age of the participants was 43.49±18.31 years. The internal consistency of the Physical Activity Scale for the Physical Disabilities scale score was high (Cronbach's alpha=0.95) and test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC=0.91). A moderately significant positive correlation was found between the Physical Activity Scale for the Physical Disabilities total score and Functional Independence Scale score (r=0.74; p=0.001) and EuroQoL Quality of Life Scale score (r=0.58; p=0.002). Conclusion: The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities was found to be a valid and reliable tool in individuals with spinal cord injury. We think that this scale is a useful tool to determine the physical activity levels of individuals with physical disabilities.

Keywords

• Spinal cord injuries
• physical activities
• health surveys
• validation study

Spinal Kord Yaralanması Olan Hastalarda Fiziksel Engelliler İçin Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği’nin (FEFA) Geçerlik ve Güvenilirliği

The original article was published on December 30, 2023. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sauhsd/article/1322366

Erratum Note

Dergimiz Cilt 6 sayı 3’te yayınlanan "Spinal Kord Yaralanması Olan Hastalarda Fiziksel Engelliler İçin Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği’nin (FEFA) Geçerlik ve Güvenilirliği" başlıklı makalenin giriş bölümünün son paragrafında düzenleme yapılmıştır. Değerli okuyuculara saygılarımızla sunarız.

Abstract

Amaç: Spinal kord yaralanmalı hastalarda Fiziksel Engelliler için Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenilirliğini test etmektir. Yöntem: Çalışmaya spinal kord yaralanması olan 52 hasta dahil edildi. Hasta değerlendirme formu ile hastaların demografik ve klinik bilgileri sorgulandı. Fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri Fiziksel Engelliler için Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği ile değerlendirildi. Fiziksel Engelliler için Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği’nin geçerliğini ve güvenilirliğini test etmek için Fonksiyonel Bağımsızlık Ölçeği ve EuroQoL Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçeği kullanıldı. Bulgular: Katılımcıların yaş ortalamaları 43.49±18.31 yıl idi. Fiziksel Engelliler için Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçek puanının iç tutarlılığı yüksek (Cronbach's alpha=0.95) ve test-tekrar test güvenilirliği mükemmeldi (ICC=0.91). Fiziksel Engelliler için Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği toplam puanı ile Fonksiyonel Bağımsızlık Ölçeği puanı (r=0.74; p=0.001) ve EuroQoL Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçeği puanı (r=0.58; p=0.002) arasında orta seviyede ve pozitif yönde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki bulundu. Sonuç: Fiziksel Engelliler İçin Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeğinin spinal kord yaralanması olan bireylerde geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu görüldü. Bu ölçeğin fiziksel engeli olan hastaların fiziksel aktivite düzeylerini belirlemede kullanılabilir bir araç olduğunu düşünmekteyiz.

Keywords

• Omurilik yaralanmaları
• fiziksel aktivite
• sağlık anketleri
• validasyon çalışması

References

1. Global, regional, and national burden of traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(1):56-87.
2. Ahuja CS, Wilson JR, Nori S, Kotter MRN, Druschel C, Curt A, et al. Traumatic spinal cord injury. Nature Reviews Disease Primers. 2017;3(1):17018.
3. Dunlop SA. Activity-dependent plasticity: implications for recovery after spinal cord injury. Trends in Neurosciences. 2008;31(8):410-8.
4. Fouad K, Krajacic A, Tetzlaff W. Spinal cord injury and plasticity: opportunities and challenges. Brain Res Bull. 2011;84(4-5):337-42.
5. Mat Rosly M, Halaki M, Hasnan N, Mat Rosly H, Davis GM, Husain R. Leisure time physical activity participation in individuals with spinal cord injury in Malaysia: barriers to exercise. Spinal cord. 2018;56(8):806-18.
6. Ginis KAM, van der Ploeg HP, Foster C, Lai B, McBride CB, Ng K, et al. Participation of people living with disabilities in physical activity: a global perspective. The Lancet. 2021;398(10298):443-55.
7. Van der Ploeg HP, Streppel KR, van der Beek AJ, van der Woude LH, Vollenbroek-Hutten M, van Mechelen W. The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities: test-retest reliability and comparison with an accelerometer. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2007;4(1):96-100.
8. Karaca A, Turnagöl HH. Çalışan Bireylerde Üç Farklı Fiziksel Aktivite Anketinin Güvenirliği ve Geçerliği. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 2007;18(2):68-84.

9. Lawrason SV, Todd KR, Shaw RB, Martin Ginis KA. Physical activity among individuals with spinal cord injury who ambulate: a systematic scoping review. Spinal cord. 2020;58(7):735-45.
10. Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71 Suppl 2:1-14.
11. Washburn RA, Zhu W, McAuley E, Frogley M, Figoni SF. The physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities: development and evaluation. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2002;83(2):193-200.
12. Köçe K, Atıcı E, Buran Çırak Y, Dürüstkan Elbaşı N, Tütüneken YE. Cultural adaptation and Turkish version of Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities in individuals with spinal cord injury: a reliability and validity study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Oct;44(21):6414-6423. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1964624.
13. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin J-B. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2014;12(1):1-10.
14. 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.
15. Öztürk E, Akyuva Y, Civelek E. Omurilik yaralanmalarında kullanılan sınıflamalar. Journal of Nervous System Surgery. 2021;7(1):1-7.
16. Hachem LD, Ahuja CS, Fehlings MG. Assessment and management of acute spinal cord injury: From point of injury to rehabilitation. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017;40(6):665-75.
17. Küçükdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, Sonel B, Tennant A. Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clinical rehabilitation. 2001;15(3):311-9.
18. Saltan A, Ergun N. Kadın Tekerlekli Sandalye Basketbolcularında Fonksiyonel Bağımsızlık, Yaşam Kalitesi ve Tekerlekli Sandalye Becerilerinin Araştırılması. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2017;28(2):60-7.
19. RABIN, Rosalind, et al. EQ-5D-5L user guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group, 2011, 22.
20. Kahyaoğlu Süt, H. and S. Ünsar, Is EQ-5D a valid quality of life instrument in patients with acute coronary syndrome? The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, 2011. 11(2): p. 156-162.
21. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use: Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.
22. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J. Statistics review 9: one-way analysis of variance. Critical care. 2004;8:1-7. Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions.
23. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2000;71(sup2):1-14.
24. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Medicine & science in sports & exercise. 2003;35(8):1381-95.
25. Rimmer JH, Riley BB, Rubin SS. A new measure for assessing the physical activity behaviors of persons with disabilities and chronic health conditions: the Physical Activity and Disability Survey. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2001;16(1):34-45.
26. de Groot S, van der Woude LH, Niezen A, Smit CA, Post MW. Evaluation of the physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities in people with spinal cord injury. Spinal cord. 2010;48(7):542-7.
27. Jimenez-Pardo J, Holmes JD, Jenkins ME, Johnson AM. An Examination of the Reliability and Factor Structure of the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals With Physical Disabilities (PASIPD) Among Individuals Living With Parkinson's Disease. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23(3):391-4.
28. Ulaş, Kardem & Topuz, Semra & Horasan, Gönül. The Reliability and Validity of The Turkish Version of The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities. Turkish journal of medical sciences. 2019;49.10.3906/sag-1901-113.