Detecting change in community participation with the Enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators. (February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kersey, Jessica; Terhorst, Lauren; Hammel, Joy; Baum, Carolyn; Toglia, Joan; O'Dell, Michael W.; Heinemann, Allen W.; McCue, Michael; Skidmore, Elizabeth R.
• Is Part Of: Clinical rehabilitation. Volume 36:Number 2(2022)
• Page Start: 251
• Page End: 262
• Publication Date: 2022-02
• Subjects: Community participation -- measurement -- stroke; Medical rehabilitation -- Periodicals; 617.03
• DOI: 10.1177/02692155211052188
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0269-2155

Abstract

Objective: This study determined the sensitivity to change of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators in people with stroke. Data sources: We analyzed data from two studies of participants with stroke: an intervention study and an observational study. Main measures: The Enfranchisement Scale contains two subscales: the Importance subscale (feeling valued by and contributing to the community; range: 14–70) and the Control subscale (choice and control: range: 13–64). Data analysis: Assessments were administered 6 months apart. We calculated minimum detectable change and minimal clinically important difference. Results: The Control subscale analysis included 121 participants with a mean age of 61.2 and mild-moderate disability (Functional Independence Measure, mean = 97.9, SD = 24.7). On the Control subscale, participants had a mean baseline score of 51.4 (SD = 10.4), and little mean change (1.3) but with large variation in change scores (SD = 11.5). We found a minimum detectable change of 9 and a minimum clinically important difference of 6. The Importance subscale analysis included 116 participants with a mean age of 60.7 and mild-moderate disability (Functional Independence Measure, mean = 98.9, SD = 24.5). On the Importance subscale, participants had a mean baseline score of 44.1 (SD = 12.7), and again demonstrated little mean change (1.08) but with large variation in change scores (SD = 12.6). We found a minimum detectable change of 11 and a minimum clinically important difference 7. Conclusions: The Control subscale required 9 points of change, and the Importance subscale required 11 points of change, to achieve statistically and clinically meaningful changes, suggesting adequate sensitivity to change.