The Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale: reliability and validity of a clinician-rated measure of participation in acute rehabilitation
Abstract
Objective To demonstrate interrater reliability and predictive validity of the Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale (PRPS), a clinician-rated 6-point Likert-type item measuring patient participation in inpatient rehabilitation sessions. Design Prospective measurement of patient participation in physical and occupational therapy sessions during inpatient rehabilitation. Setting University-based, freestanding acute rehabilitation hospital. Participants Two hundred forty-two inpatients, primarily elderly, with a variety of impairment diagnoses (eg, stroke), who were admitted for inpatient rehabilitation. Interventions Not applicable. Main outcome measures Change in the 13 motor items from the FIM trade mark instrument, from admission to discharge. Results The PRPS had high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.91 for occupational therapists; ICC=.96 for physical therapists). The subjects had mean PRPS scores +/- standard deviation of 4.73+/-0.76. Mean PRPS scores predicted rehabilitation outcome (N=242, r=.32, P<.0001), as measured by change in motor FIM. The strength of this association did not change in a multivariate model that controlled for age, gender, race, impairment group, medical comorbidity count, length of stay, and admission FIM. Conclusions Patient participation during acute inpatient rehabilitation can be easily and reliably measured, and PRPS scores predict functional outcome. The PRPS may have applicability in clinical and research outcome measurement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale is a clinician-rated, 6-point Likert scale that measures patient participation in rehabilitation sessions.
“The PRPS is a clinician-rated, 6-point Likert scale that measures patient participation in rehabilitation sessions.”
From Serious Game for Fine Motor Control Rehabilitation for Children With Epileptic Encephalopathy: Development and Usability Study (2023) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 217
- Authors
- Lenze, E. J., Munin, M. C., Quear, T., Dew, M. A., Rogers, J. C., Begley, A. E., & Reynolds, C. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Venue
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 380-384
- ISSN
- 0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2039527162
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 8.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH052247, K23 MH64196, K23MH064196, P30-MH52247)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
- Keywords
- patient participation, inpatient rehabilitation, inter-rater reliability, predictive validity, functional outcome, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, stroke, elderly patients
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Nervous System Diseases, Occupational Therapy, Patient Participation, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function, Physical Therapy Modalities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review