Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury

Mah, Cassandra; Noonan, Vanessa K.; Bryan, Stirling; Whitehurst, David G. T.

doi:10.1007/s40271-020-00451-6

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most detailed results were available for questionnaires of the ICECAP-family. Both the ICECAP-O and the ICECAP-A were reported to have good construct [49,51,52,64,66], convergent [29,53,55,58,60,62,67,70,71] validity when compared to the EQ-5D instrument to measure generic health status, and discriminant validity [29,55,58,67,71]. The ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A further showed good testretest reliability [29,43,57,62,77] and good internal consistency [29,51,58,70].…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The ICECAP-A was developed to measure capabilities among adults over 18. Six of the identified articles used this target group [29,32,43,51,63,64,77] while others validated it pointedly for adults with knee pain [66], opiate dependence [68], depression [69], among women suffering irritative lower urinary tract syndrome [67], or adults with a spinal cord injury [71].…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The capability approach by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum has gained increasing attention in the field of public health. As it combines individual, social and structural factors and shifts the focus of attention from the actual behavior towards available options for health behaviors that people can actually choose from, it may help advance our understanding of complex health issues. Objectives The aim of this article is to identify and describe tools available to measure capabilities within the context of health, with a specific focus on capabilities for health-enhancing physical activity. Method We conducted a systematic literature review using 11 databases covering scientific journal articles published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2020 with a focus on capabilities for health or physical activity. Results We found a total of 51 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Four articles measured capabilities using qualitative methods, one combined qualitative and quantitative methods, while the rest used quantitative methods. We identified a total 11 different capability questionnaires, all showing moderate to good validity/reliability. Only one questionnaire and one interview-based tool specifically dealt with capabilities for health enhancing physical activity. Conclusion Although we were able to identify measurement tools for capabilities in health, this review has shown that there is no generic tool available for the measurement across all population- and age-groups, and tools focusing on physical activity are scarce. However, our results can be used as guide for future projects that aim at measuring capabilities.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 3 reports on the main aims of the included articles as well as the main methods used to develop the individual measurement tool or to empirically test its measurement properties. Out of the 52 included articles, 8 described the development of a measurement instrument [24-29, 33, 34], 20 focused on checking psychometric properties of existing tools [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53], 2 evaluated different instruments comparatively [54,55], and 8 reported results of actual measurements of health-related capabilities [23,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. The remaining (n=14) articles had a mixed focus: on development/measurement (n=2) [63,64] Among the qualitative tools, only Sauter et al [63] provided details on the development process: Their interview guidelines were the result of literature screening and a conscious selection of speci c items from the OCAP questionnaire [28].…”

Section: Main Aims and Methods Employedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ICECAP-A was developed to measure capabilities among adults over 18. Six of the identi ed articles used this target group [25,44,45,[67][68][69]75] while others validated it pointedly for adults with knee pain [47], opiate dependence [49], depression [50], among women suffering irritative lower urinary tract syndrome [48], or adults with a spinal cord injury [52].…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most detailed results were available for questionnaires of the ICECAP-family. Both the ICECAP-O and the ICECAP-A were reported to have good construct [35,37,45,47,67], convergent [38,42,48,51,52,65,66,69,72] validity when compared to the EQ-5D instrument to measure generic health status, and discriminant validity [38,42,48,52,69]. The ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A further showed good test-retest reliability [40,66,68,69,75] and good internal consistency [42,51,67,69].…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review.

Till

Abu‐Omar

Ferschl

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The capability approach by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum has gained increasing attention in the field of public health. As it combines individual, social and structural factors and shifts the focus of attention from the actual behavior towards available options for health behaviors that people can actually choose from, it may help advance our understanding of complex health issues. Objectives: The aim of this article is to identify and describe tools available to measure capabilities within the context of health, with a specific focus on capabilities for health-enhancing physical activity.Method: We conducted a systematic literature review using 11 databases covering scientific journal articles published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2020 with a focus on capabilities for health or physical activity. Results: We found a total of 51 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Four articles measured capabilities using qualitative methods, one combined qualitative and quantitative methods, while the rest used quantitative methods. We identified a total 11 different capabilitzy questionnaires, all showing moderate to good validity/reliability. Only one questionnaire and one interview-based tool specifically dealt with capabilities for health enhancing physical activity. Conclusion: Although we were able to identify measurement tools for capabilities in health, this review has shown that there is no generic tool available for the measurement across all population- and age-groups, and tools focusing on physical activity are scarce. However, our results can be used as guide for future projects that aim at measuring capabilities.

show abstract

Measurement properties of the ICECAP-A capability well-being instrument among dermatological patients

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Capability well-being captures well-being based on people’s ability to do the things they value in life. So far, no capability well-being measures have been validated in dermatological patients. Objectives To validate the adult version of the ICEpop CAPability measure (ICECAP-A) in patients with dermatological conditions. We aimed to test floor and ceiling effects, structural, convergent and known-group validity, and measurement invariance. Methods In 2020, an online, cross-sectional survey was carried out in Hungary. Respondents with self-reported physician-diagnosed dermatological conditions completed the ICECAP-A, Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), WHO-5 Well-Being Index and two dermatology-specific measures, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Skindex-16. Results 618 respondents (mean age 51 years) self-reported a physician-diagnosed dermatological condition, with warts, eczema, onychomycosis, acne and psoriasis being the most common. ICECAP-A performed well with no floor and mild ceiling effects. The violation of local independence assumption was found between the attributes of ‘attachment’ and ‘enjoyment’. ICECAP-A index scores correlated strongly with SWLS and WHO-5 (rs = 0.597–0.644) and weakly with DLQI and Skindex-16 (rs = − 0.233 to − 0.292). ICECAP-A was able to distinguish between subsets of patients defined by education and income level, marital, employment and health status. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis indicated measurement invariance across most of these subgroups. Conclusions This is the first study to validate a capability well-being measure in patients with dermatological conditions. The ICECAP-A was found to be a valid tool to assess capability well-being in dermatological patients. Future work is recommended to test measurement properties of ICECAP-A in chronic inflammatory skin conditions.

show abstract

Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury

Cited by 4 publications

References 104 publications

Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review

Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review

Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review.

Measurement properties of the ICECAP-A capability well-being instrument among dermatological patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About