ÌÀÍ·Ìõapp

SCI: (Moriello, et al., 2014; n=1 male who sustained an incomplete C3-C6 SCI; age= 59; case-study of a 12-week yoga program intervention; 60 minutes, two times a week; data from baseline and discharge, SCI)

• Overall QOLP-PD score= 5.04 at baseline, 5.00 at discharge.
• ¡°Being¡± category decreased from 5.89 to 4.39 
• ¡°Belonging¡± category decreased from 5.17 to 3.94 
• ¡°Becoming¡± category increased from 4.05 to 6.67

Spinal Cord Injury: (Renwick et al, 2003; n = 40: mean age = 35.85 (9.29) years. 30 males 10 females; age range 16-61 years; living with complete paraplegia or complete quadriplegia)

• Duration of injury ranging from 2-30 years

(Rigby et al., 2011; n = 36: mean age = 42.1 years; 26 males 10 females; age range 17 to 79 years)

• SCI of a tetraplegia with a C5/6 or above injury

• 15 participants utilized EADL¡¯s (Electronic Aids to Daily Living)

• 21 users were non-EADL users 

Spinal Cord Injury: (Manns, et al, 1999; n= 38 adults with SCI--quadriplegia and paraplegia; mean age=35.9 years; cross-sectional exploratory study; examin the relationship between fitness, physical activity and subjective quality of life among adults with physical disabilities, SCI)

• Subjective quality of life score: quadriplegia (22.5), paraplegia (24.8); higher numbers indicate better subjective quality of life

Objectively scored. Not relevant.

Spinal Cord Injury:(Renwick et al. 2003)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach¡¯s a=0.98). For the QOLP-PD domains: Being (Cronbach¡¯s a=0.95), Belonging (Cronbach¡¯s a=0.95) and Becoming (Cronbach¡¯s a=0.97) 

(Rigby et al., 2011)

• Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach¡¯s 0.67 to 0.93) for the QOLP-PD

Spinal Cord Injury: (Manns, et al, 1999, SCI)

• Excellent internal consistency of the overall QoL (a=.97)
• Excellent importance and satisfaction (a= .96 and .98)

Concurrent validity:

Spinal Cord Injury:

(Rigby et al., 2011)

• Adequate concurrent validity

Spinal Cord Injury:

(Renwick et al, 2003) 

• Excellent Correlations for subscales Physical Being (r = 0.63); Psychological Being (r = 0.75); Spiritual Being ( r = 0.78); Physical Belonging (r = 0.77); Social Belonging (r = 0.76); Community Belonging (r = 0.72); Practical Becoming (r = 0.78); Leisure Becoming (r = 0.87); Growth Becoming (r =.088)

(Rigby et al., 2011)

• Excellent construct validity. Cronbach's ranging 0.67 to 0.93

SCI:

(Rigby et al., 2011) 

• Considered high for this instrument, given that the content for the tool is based on in-depth interviews with adults with physical disabilities, however, no true values were given

Cross disability: (Renwick et al, 2003; n = 27; mean age =36.78 (10.41) years, range = 19-56 years; 17 males 10 females)

• Duration of disabilities ranged from 3-35 years

• Cognitive ability to participate in English language interview)

Cross Disability: (Renwick et al. 2003)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach¡¯s a=0.97). For the QOLP-PD domains: Being (Cronbach¡¯s a=0.94), Belonging (Cronbach¡¯s a=.90), and Becoming (Cronbach¡¯s a=0.93).

Concurrent validity: 

Cross Disability: (Renwick et al., 2003)

• Poor concurrent validity with Deiner¡¯s SWLS scale (r=0.29). 
• Adequate concurrent validity with the MUNSH scale (r=.45). 

Pearson correlations of sub-scales of the QOLP-PD with the Deiner scale and the MUNSH

Cross disability: 

(Hill et al., 2009)

• Excellent construct validity (r=0.63-0.88) 

(Renwick et al, 2003)

• Excellent correlations for subscales Physical Being (r = 0.67); Physical Belonging (r= 0.67); Psychological Being (r = 0.73); Spiritual Being (r = 0.82); Social Belonging (r = 0.79); Practical Becoming (r = 0.81); Leisure Becoming (r = 0.71); Growth Becoming (r = 0.75). 
• Adequate correlation for subscale Community Belonging (r = 0.58)

Pearson correlations between adjusted total scores and sub-scale scores of the QOLP-PD

• Preliminary items selected based on review of the literature, existing instruments grounded in the CHP model, and data from interviews with adults with physical disabilities. 
• Item pool was reviewed by 10 adults living with a physical disability, 10 rehabilitation service providers, and five researchers specializing in quality of life and disability. 
• Item pool was subjected to item analysis. (Renwick et al, 2003). 

• Not specifically addressed but the authors  mention that specific question were compiled by adults with physical disabilities, rehabilitation service providers, and researchers whose major focus of study is in quality of life and  rehabilitation .(Rigby, et al, 2011).

Cross Disability: 

(Hill et al., 2009)

• QOLP-PD has very positive supportive evidence and face validity, appropriate for continued use