Comparison of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation with the ICF Measure of Participation and Activities Screener and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II in persons with spinal cord injury

Objective: To validate the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (USER-Participation) in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) using 2 International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based instruments: the ICF Measure of Participation and Activities-Screener (IMPACT-S) and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS II).

Design: Validation study. Score distributions, internal consistency, and concurrent and discriminant validity were evaluated.

Setting: The community.

Participants: Convenience sample of persons (N=157) with long-term SCI living in The Netherlands.

Interventions: Not applicable.

Main outcome measures: USER-Participation, IMPACT-S, and WHODAS II.

Results: No instruments showed floor effects, and 3 out of 6 WHODAS II domains showed ceiling effects. Most scores showed adequate internal consistency (α≥.70), except for the USER-Participation frequency scale (.51) and 2 WHODAS II domains (.58-.60). Spearman correlation coefficients between the segregate USER-Participation scales were <.60 (range, .39-.46), showing that they cover separate aspects of participation. Concurrent validity of the USER-Participation was shown because >75% (83.3%) of the 24 hypotheses (Spearman correlation coefficients above or below .60) with the other measurement instruments were confirmed. Concurrent validity between the IMPACT-S and WHODAS II was not shown (53.8% of 13 hypotheses confirmed). All scores except 4 WHODAS II domains showed significant differences in participation between persons with paraplegia and tetraplegia.

Conclusions: The USER-Participation showed generally satisfactory psychometric properties in Dutch persons with long-term SCI living in the community. The IMPACT-S showed the best psychometric properties, and the WHODAS II showed less favorable results. Future research on the USER-Participation should focus on validation in other languages and different diagnostic groups.