4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluating home environments of persons with dementia: interrater reliability and validity of the Home Environmental Assessment Protocol (HEAP)

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 24, 期 1-3, 页码 59-71

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638280110066325

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [U01AG013265, R03AG015517] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIA NIH HHS [U01-AG13265, R03-AG15517] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This article reports on an interrater reliability and preliminary validity study of an investigator-developed tool, the Home Environmental Assessment Protocol (HEAP) for use in homes of persons with dementia. Method: The HEAP consists of 192 items that are summed into separate indices representing the number of hazards, adaptations, and level of clutter and comfort in eight areas of the home. Interrater reliability was examined among four raters, two environmental experts and two non-experts, who observed 22 dementia households. Results: The Kappa statistic was used to evaluate agreement level for each measured item and found that agreement ranged from slight to almost perfect. Intraclass correlations (ICCs), were used to evaluate agreement level for indices. The hazard index in each room ranged from fair (0.36) to moderate (0.66) for all raters. For the adaptation, clutter and comfort indices in each room, ICCs ranged from 0.51 to 0.90 for all raters. Agreement level between expert and non-expert raters differed minimally for all indices. Adaptations to dining rooms (r = -0.080, p = 0.001), kitchens (r = -0.52, p = 0.02) and bedrooms (r = -0.76, p = 0.001) were associated with patient deficits such that more adaptations were made in homes of dependent persons. Low Mini-Mental Status Examination scores were associated with fewer hazards, more adaptations, and less clutter. Conclusion: Findings show that both experts and non-expert raters use the HEAP consistently. Also, measured attributes are related to cognitive and functional status in the expected direction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据