4.2 Article

Cross-cultural validation of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) norms in a randomized Norwegian population

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 143-152

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/11038120802022011

Keywords

Assessment; children; cross-cultural; functional; outcome measure; validation

Categories

Funding

  1. unnaas Rehabilitation Hospital
  2. Birgit Sunnaas Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) is one of the most commonly used assessments for children with a disability. Normative data from the US are used to determine whether a deficit or delay exists with regard to functional skill development. The purpose of this study was to analyse the cross-cultural validity of the PEDI American normative data for a general Norwegian population. A random selection of 174 typically developed Norwegian children between 1.0 and 5.9 years participated. The results for capability and caregiver assistance in the domains of self-care, mobility, and social function ranged from a mean of 38.0-46.8 against an expected 50. The Norwegian sample scored significantly lower than the US reference values for functional skills and caregiver assistance, and the results had less fit, especially for self-care. For mobility and social function, the magnitudes of the differences were smaller than self-care. Specific items deviated, suggesting necessary adjustments for the applicability of the norm-referenced scores of the PEDI in the Norwegian culture. The result of this research confirms other findings of cultural influence of the age norms in PEDI. Even though interpretations of the normative score results must be made with some caution, the option of using the scaled scores of PEDI is useful and recommended to describe and measure abilities and to evaluate change. This finding highlights the importance of cultural validation of norm-referenced tests.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available