You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Posters presentations
P6 Differences in the modified disablement in the physically active scale in those with and without chronic ankle instability
  1. SE Baez1,
  2. JM Hoch1,
  3. RJ Cramer2,
  4. CP Powden3,
  5. MN Houston4,
  6. KK Hogan1,
  7. MC Hoch1
  1. 1School of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
  2. 2School of Community and Environmental Health, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
  3. 3Department of Applied Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, USA
  4. 4Keller Army Community Hospital, West Point, NY, USA

Abstract

Study Design Case-control.

Objectives Verify the factor structure of the modified Disablement in the Physically Active Scale (mDPA) and compare the physical summary component (PSC) and mental summary component (MSC) in those with and without chronic ankle instability (CAI).

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide information about a patient’s health status from the patient’s perspective. The mDPA has become a common PRO for physically active patients; however, the factor structure of this instrument has not been verified. Additionally, there is limited evidence that has examined generic PROs, such as the mDPA, in CAI patients.

Methods and Measures One hundred and eighteen people with CAI (females=79; age:23.56±4.88 y, height:169.80±10.09 cm, weight:73.38±15.45 kg) and 81 healthy controls (females=56; age:22.91±2.79 y, height:167.52±11.82 cm, weight:67.05±10.64 kg) participated. All subjects completed the 16-item mDPA, which included the PSC and MSC. On both subscales, higher scores represented greater disablement. To examine the model fit of the mDPA, single-factor and two-factor (i.e., PSC and MSC) structures were tested. Group differences were examined using independent t-tests with corresponding effect sizes (ES) (p≤0.05).

Results Inspection of model fit indices for both models showed the two-factor structure to possess adequate fit to the data, χ2(101)=275.58, p<0.001, CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.09 (95%CI=0.08, 0.11), SRMR=0.06. All items loaded significantly and in expected directions on respective subscales (λ-range=0.59–0.87, all ps<0.001). The CAI group reported greater PSC (CAI:11.45±8.30, Healthy:0.62±1.80, p<0.001, ES=1.67 (95%CI=1.33, 1.99)) and MSC (CAI:1.75±2.58, Healthy:0.58±1.46, p<0.001, ES=0.53 (95%CI=0.24, 0.82)) scores.

Conclusions The two-factor structure of the mDPA was verified which confirms the use of the PSC and MSC. Individuals with CAI reported greater disablement; particularly on the PSC, when compared to healthy controls. The clinical relevance of the MSC group difference requires additional investigation based on the moderate ES. Overall, these results indicate the mDPA is a generic PRO that can be utilised in the evaluation and rehabilitation of patients with CAI.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-anklesymp.38

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.