Measuring community integration after spinal cord injury: validation of the Sydney psychosocial reintegration scale and community integration measure

Abstract

Research should continue to develop conceptually and psychometrically valid instruments to capture the multidimensionality of community integration. The SPRS and CIM show potential to extend measurement of community reintegration following SCI.

Translation and Initial Validation of the Chinese (Cantonese) Version of Community Integration Measure for Use in Patients with Chronic Stroke

“…Our results showed that the overall level of community integration (mean (SD): 43.48 (5.79)) was comparable to those reported among people with spinal cord injury (SCI) [18] (mean (SD): 42.50 (5.80)) but higher than those of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) (mean (SD): 39.40 (8.10)) [14] and acquired brain injury (ABI) (mean (SD): 28.80 (7.70)) [13]. The study found that people with stroke, like those with SCI, have a high level of community integration as measured by the CIM.…”

“…55 percent of our subjects claimed to exercise 7 times per week, and this group of patients would be more active to join the community activities. In De Wolf's study [18], 60% of the subjects with SCI had a low impairment levels (tetraplegia ASIA D or paraplegia), and all the subjects in our present study had high level of functional mobility. In addition, the functional mobility of our subjects with stroke, similar to those of patients with SCI, can mostly be compensated for by efficient use of assistive devices, walking aids, and/or a wheelchair.…”

“…It revealed the good internal consistency and excellent test-retest reliability of the Chinese version of CIM. In addition, this study extended the findings of previous investigations on the level of community integration of people with various chronic illnesses, including acquired brain injury [13], traumatic brain injury [14], and spinal cord injury [18], by investigating the level of community integration of Chinese stroke survivors in Hong Kong using a measure coherent with the ICF model. Our final 3-factor structure was comparable to those suggested by Reistetter and colleagues [3] for use in patients with brain injury, and our model was also consistent with the original theoretical model.…”

“…Chinese stroke survivors, in particular, are poorly served in this respect. Although the CIM is now widely used with survivors of brain injury [3, 13, 14] and spinal cord injury [18], it has not yet been translated from English into any other languages. Thus, the objectives of this study were (1) to translate and culturally adapt the contents of the English version CIM into Chinese (Cantonese), (2) to report the results of initial validation of the Chinese (Cantonese) version CIM (CIM-C) including the content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and factor structure in a Chinese setting, and (3) to use the CIM-C to investigate the level of community integration of stroke survivors living in Hong Kong.…”

Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS‐2): Meeting the Challenge of Measuring Participation in Neurological Conditions

“…Second, for the SCI sample, item 10 (personal habits) was answered from the perspective of whether or not the participant was able to complete self‐care tasks either independently or by directing attendant carers; whereas in the TBI and PBT samples, item 10 was rated strictly in terms of whether the person was able to complete the task independent of another person's involvement, whether for direct care, supervision, or prompt. The SPRS (and its revision, SPRS‐2) has been extensively validated with TBI populations (Tate et al., 1999, 2011) and more recently for the SCI population (De Wolf, Lane‐Brown, Tate, Middleton, & Cameron, 2010). However, it has not previously been examined psychometrically for people with PBT.…”