Intermethod reliability and factors affecting recall with the Temple University Community Participation measure

Abstract

The TUCP is a usable and relatively unobtrusive measure of community participation. Modest evidence found that more frequent events were recalled more consistently.

Using global positioning systems to study health-related mobility and participation

“…The within-individual variability in mobility and participation observed in this paper is consistent with findings in studies that have used subjectively reported data on participation. For instance, a recent study by Salzer et al (2015) has found similar variability in daily participation levels among individuals with psychiatric disabilities who, over the course of 30 days, have used a daily activity checklist to indicate which areas they participated in on that day.…”

“…To date, participation has primarily been measured using self-report, including recall approaches (Salzer et al, 2014) and time use logs (Eklund et al, 2009;Yanos and Robilotta, 2011). While such approaches have been found to be reliable and valid (Salzer et al, 2014(Salzer et al, , 2015, additional approaches could be valuable, especially if they expand the types of mobility and participation constructs that can be assessed.…”

Using Geospatial Research Methods to Examine Resource Accessibility and Availability as it Relates to Community Participation of Individuals with Serious Mental Illnesses

“…The measure asks participants to indicate how many days in the past 30 they have participated in 22 different areas (e.g., going to a restaurant or coffee shop, going to a place of worship), and whether they view their participation in each area as important (“yes” or “no”) and done as much as they would want (measured as “not enough,” “enough,” or “too much”). The TUCP has good test‐rest and inter‐method reliability (Salzer, Kottsieper & Brusilovskiy, ; Salzer et al., ), and the Cronbach's alpha in the current study is 0.71. Participants' responses to the 22 TUCP items were used to calculate the participation breadth and sufficiency measures described in Table .…”

“…Thus far (including the current study), participation has primarily been measured via self‐report approaches that require participant recall (Salzer et al., ; Yanos & Robilotta, ). While such approaches have been found to be reliable and valid (Salzer et al., , ), they are still prone to recall bias and may miss important aspects of participation that could be examined with more objective approaches, such as GPS technology. GPS devices and GPS‐enabled smartphones can be used to better understand the size and shape of individuals' activity spaces and track participation patterns as individuals engage in their daily routines (Brusilovskiy et al., ).…”

Associations Between Physical Health Limitations and Community Participation Among People With and Without Serious Mental Illnesses

“…The measure asks participants to indicate how many days in the past 30 they participated in 22 different areas (going to a restaurant, going to a place of worship), whether they view their participation in each area as important, and whether they participated in each area as frequently as desired. The TUCP measure has demonstrated good test-retest and intermethod reliability (21,22) as well as construct validity (23). Participants' responses to the 22 TUCP items were used to calculate the following: total number of participation days, calculated as the sum of participation days across all 22 items; total number of participation areas across all 22 items with at least 1 day of participation completed; and sufficiency of participation, or the percentage of important activity areas in which the person participated as much as desired.…”