Cited by 217Medical Practices and RehabilitationStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryOccupational Therapy Practice and Research

The Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale: reliability and validity of a clinician-rated measure of participation in acute rehabilitation

Lenze, Eric J, Munin, Michael C, Quear, Tanya, Dew, Mary Amanda, Rogers, Joan C, Begley, Amy E, Reynolds, Charles F·2004·Archives of Physical Medicine and 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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 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