Cited by 39Mental Health and Patient InvolvementDisability Rights and RepresentationMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Participatory Action Research Designs in Applied Disability and Rehabilitation Science: Protecting Against Threats to Social Validity

Seekins, Tom, White, Glen W.·2013·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Researchers and disability advocates have been debating consumer involvement in disability and rehabilitation science since at least 1972. Despite the length of this debate, much confusion remains. Consumer involvement may represent a spirit of democracy or even empowerment, but as a tool of science, it is necessary to understand how to judge its application. To realize consumer involvement as a design element in science, researchers need a framework for understanding how it can contribute to the scientific process. The thesis of this article is that a primary scientific function of consumer involvement is to reduce threats to the social validity of research, the extent to which those expected to use or benefit from research products judge them as useful and actually use them. Social validity has traditionally not been treated with the same rigor as concerns for internal and external validity. This article presents a framework that describes 7 threats to social validity and explains how 15 forms of consumer involvement protect against those threats. We also suggest procedures for reporting and reviewing consumer involvement in proposals and manuscripts. This framework offers tools familiar to all scientists for identifying threats to the quality of research, and for judging the effectiveness of strategies for protecting against those threats. It may also enhance the standing of consumer involvement strategies as tools for protecting research quality by organizing them in a way that allows for systematic criticism of their effectiveness and subsequent improvement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.07.033

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seekins, T., & White, G. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Montana (US)
  • University of Kansas (US)
Corresponding author
Seekins, Tom
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
94
Issue
1
Pages
S20-S29
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090204308
Cited by
39
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
consumer involvement, participatory action research, social validity, research design, research quality, disability advocacy, empowerment
MeSH terms
Community Participation, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Leadership, Patient Advocacy, Power, Psychological, Rehabilitation, Research Design, Social Values, Focus Groups, Guidelines as Topic, Advisory Committees, Physical Therapy Specialty, Translational Research, Biomedical

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