Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Dec;93(12):2313-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jun 21.

Manual wheelchair skills: objective testing versus subjective questionnaire.

Author information

  • 1Rehabilitation Sciences Graduate Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. paula.rushton@umontreal.ca

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To test the hypothesis that the total scores of the Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) version 4.1, an observer-rated scale of wheelchair performance, and the Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (WST-Q) version 4.1, a self-report of wheelchair skills, are highly correlated. We also anticipate that the WST-Q scores will be slightly higher, indicating an overestimation of capacity to perform wheelchair skills as compared with actual capacity.

DESIGN:

A cross-sectional, within-subjects comparison design.

SETTING:

Three Canadian cities.

PARTICIPANTS:

Convenience sample of community-dwelling, experienced manual wheelchair users (N=89) ranging in age from 21 to 94 years.

INTERVENTION:

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Participants completed the subjective WST-Q version 4.1 followed by the objective WST version 4.1 in 1 testing session.

RESULTS:

The mean ± SD total percentage scores for WST and WST-Q were 79.5%±14.4% and 83.0%±12.1% for capacity and 99.4%±1.5% and 98.9%±2.5% for safety, respectively. The correlations between the WST and WST-Q scores were ρ=.89 (P=.000) for capacity and ρ=.12 (P=.251) for safety. WST-Q total score mean differences were an average of 3.5%±6.5% higher than WST scores for capacity (P=.000) and .52%±2.8% lower for safety (P=.343). For the 32 individual skills, the percentage agreement between the WST and WST-Q scores ranged from 82% to 100% for capacity and from 90% to 100% for safety.

CONCLUSION:

WST and WST-Q version 4.1 capacity scores are highly correlated although the WST-Q scores are slightly higher. Decisions on which of these assessments to use can safely be based on the circumstances and objectives of the evaluation.

Copyright © 2012 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
22728701
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3951990
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk