ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Wheelchair users & non-wheelchair users: (Faieta et al., 2020; n = 871; mean age = 53 (16.7); (spinal cord injury n = 123, cerebral palsy n = 102, stroke n = 62, osteoarthritis n = 59), (power wheelchair n = 255, scooter n = 25, manual wheelchair n = 378, cane/crutch/walker n = 171, no device n = 41)

• Score thresholds for satisfaction with functional mobility (score ranges out of a range from 10 to 60 with all items scored):
  • 10 ¨C 35 = low satisfaction
  • 36 ¨C 41 = moderate satisfaction
  • 42 ¨C 60 = high satisfaction

Wheelchair users: (Paulisso et al., 2019; N = 47; 44 manual wheelchair users, 3 power wheelchair users; 87.2% male; mean (SD) age = 40.1 (14.3) years; Brazilian population)

• Adequate test-retest reliability (Spearman r = 0.88)

Wheelchair users & non-wheelchair users: (Kumar et al., 2013; N = 41; 21 wheelchair users, 20 non-wheelchair users; mean (SD) age = 54 (16) years; mean (SD) time of mobility device use = 7.4 (9.1) years)

• Adequate test-retest reliability for all participants (ICC = 0.87)
• Adequate test-retest reliability for wheelchair users (ICC = 0.85)
• Adequate test-retest reliability for non-wheelchair users (ICC = 0.87)

Wheelchair users: (Paulisso et al., 2019)

• Excellent interrater reliability, as rated by two occupational therapists previously trained for use of the FMA (Spearman r = 0.97)

Wheelchair users & non-wheelchair users: (Faieta et al., 2020; N = 871; mean age = 53 (16.7); 14.1% spinal cord injury, 11.7% cerebral palsy, 7.1% stroke, 6.8% osteoarthritis; 43.4% manual wheelchair users, 29.3% power wheelchair users, 2.9% scooter users, 19.6% cane/crutch/walker users, 4.7% no device)

• Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.85)

Concurrent validity:

Wheelchair users: (Paulisso et al., 2019)

• Adequate concurrent validity with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST), which evaluates satisfaction of assistive technology (r = 0.411)

Convergent validity:

Wheelchair users: (Paulisso et al., 2019)

• Adequate convergent validity with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), which evaluates independence in the ability to perform activities of daily living (r = 0.323)
• Poor convergent validity with the Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (WST-Q), which evaluates performance of wheelchair users in carrying out tasks (r = 0.295)

Kumar et al. (2013) state that the FMA is a revised instrument created by modifying the items from the Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair (FEW) assessment to include items applicable to assessing the needs of both existing wheelchair users and users of other mobility devices, such as canes, crutches, walkers, prosthetics, orthotics, or no device at all. The FEW is a self-report tool developed from consumer-generated information and has established good content validity (captured 98.5% of mobility-related goals; p. 214).

Paulisso et al. (2020) evaluated face validity with 12 mobility device users (some used multiple devices: wheelchair n = 10, crutch n = 4, cane n = 1, walker n = 1) and 12 occupational therapy students and determined that ¡°[the FMA] is semantically, idiomatically, culturally, and conceptually adapted to the Brazilian context, while its format and content are in accordance with the FMA instrument in its original version. We identified that FMA has good face validation and allows therapists to gather relevant data related to satisfaction and priorities regarding mobility devices (p. 6).¡±

Faieta et al. (2020) performed a Rasch analysis and determined that ¡°the person-item maps provide face validity in the ordering of items (p. 714).¡± Faieta et al. (2020) also state that ¡°psychometric evaluation suggests the FMA provides valid and reliable measures of perceived satisfaction with functional mobility. The difficulty of the items demonstrates face validity of the FMA (p. 714).¡±

Wheelchair users & non-wheelchair users: (Faieta et al., 2020)

• Adequate ceiling effect of 4.71%
• Adequate floor effect of 3.79%