Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Nov-Dec;45(6):630-41.
doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-45.6.630.

The Disablement in the Physically Active Scale, part II: the psychometric properties of an outcomes scale for musculoskeletal injuries

Luzita I Vela  1 , Craig R Denegar
Affiliations

The Disablement in the Physically Active Scale, part II: the psychometric properties of an outcomes scale for musculoskeletal injuries

Luzita I Vela et al. J Athl Train. 2010 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Context: Outcomes assessment is an integral part of ensuring quality in athletic training, but few generic instruments have been specifically designed to measure disablement in the physically active.

Objective: To assess the psychometric properties of the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale (DPA), a patient-report, generic outcomes instrument.

Design: Observational study.

Setting: We collected data in 5 settings with competitive and recreational athletes. Participants entered into the study at 3 distinct points: (1) when healthy and (2) after an acute injury, or (3) after a persistent injury.

Patients or other participants: Measures were obtained from 368 baseline participants (202 females, 166 males; age = 20.1 ± 3.8 years), 54 persistent participants (32 females, 22 males; age = 22.0 ± 8.3 years), and 28 acutely injured participants (8 females, 20 males; age = 19.8 ± 1.90 years).

Main outcome measure(s): We assessed internal consistency with a Cronbach α and test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation (2,1) values. The scale's factor structure was assessed with a hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity was assessed with a Pearson correlation. Responsiveness was calculated using a receiver operating characteristic curve and a minimal clinically important difference value.

Results: The Cronbach α scores for the DPA were 0.908 and 0.890 in acute and persistent groups, respectively. The intraclass correlation (2,1) value of the DPA was 0.943 (95% confidence interval = 0.885, 0.972). The fit indices values were 1.89, 0.852, 0.924, 0.937, and 0.085 (90% confidence interval = 0.066, 0.103) for the minimum sample discrepancy divided by degrees of freedom, goodness-of-fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, comparative fit index, and root mean square error of approximation, respectively. The DPA scores accounted for 51% to 56.4% of the variation in global functioning scores. The area under the curve was statistically significant, and the minimally clinically important difference values were established.

Conclusions: The DPA is a reliable, valid, and responsive instrument.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Disablement framework from which the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale was derived.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Path specification of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis with loadings.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Receiver operating curve for acute participants, day 3. Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; MCID, minimal clinically important difference.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Receiver operating curve for acute participants, day 7. Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; MCID, minimal clinically important difference.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Receiver operating curve for persistent participants, week 3. Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; MCID, minimal clinically important difference.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Receiver operating curve for persistent participants, week 6. Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; MCID, minimal clinically important difference.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Donabedian A. The Criteria and Standards of Quality. Vol 2. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1982. pp. 1–13.
    1. Donabedian A. Quality assessment and assurance: unity of purpose, diversity of means. Inquiry. 1998;25(1):173–192. - PubMed
    1. Donabedian A. An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003. pp. 45–56.
    1. Sackett D. L., Straus S. E., Richardson W. J., Rosenberg W., Haynes R. B. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Vol 2. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
    1. Lowenstein R. The quality cure? The New York Times Magazine. March 13, 2005;6:46–51.

Publication types