4.2 Article

Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of ABILHAND-Kids' questionnaire in a group of patients with neuromuscular disorders

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 33, Issue 10, Pages 780-787

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2017.1346026

Keywords

ABILHAND-Kids; neuromuscular disorders; reliability; Turkish version; validity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was performed to examine the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of ABILHAND-Kids questionnaire which assesses manual functions of children with neuromuscular diseases (NMDs). A cross sectional survey study design and Rasch analysis were used to assess the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of scale. Ninety-three children with different neuromuscular disorders and their parents were included in the study. The scale was applied to the parents with face-to-face interview twice; on their first visit and after an interval of 15 days. The test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency of the multi-item subscales by calculating Cronbach alpha values. Brooke Upper Extremity Functional Classification (BUEFC) and Wee-Functional Independency Measurement (Wee-FIM) were correlated to determine the construct validity. The ICC value for the test/retest reliability was 0.94. The internal consistency was 0.81. Floor (1.1%) and ceiling (11.8%) effects were not significant. There were moderate correlations between the Turkish version of ABILHAND-Kids and Wee-FIM (0.67) and BUEFC (-0.37). Rasch analysis indicated good item fit, unidimensionality, and model fit. The Turkish version of ABILHAND-Kids questionnaire was found to be a reliable and valid scale for the assessment of the manual ability of children with NMDs.

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