Skip to main content

Table 4 Psychometric properties of the identified tools

From: Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review

Qualitative/mixed methods
No. Instrument Author (year) Sample size, description of study population; age; % male; country   
1. Interviews Weaver et al., (2014) [23] n = 45; adults with diabetes; M = 60; 42%; Canada   
Ndomoto et al. (2018) [24] n = 55; whole community; n.a.; n.a.; rural Kenya and urban deprived UK   
Sauter et al. (2018) [25] n = 26; older adults; 65+;38%; Germany   
Chakraborty et al. (2020) [26] n = 64 in 8 focus-group and 8 in depth interviews; parents of children under 2 years of age; 16+; 42%; Bangladesh   
2. Videography Petros et al. (2016) [28] n = 12; adults with mental illness; n.a.; n.a.; USA   
Mixed method
No. Instrument Author (year) Sample size, description of study population; age; % male; country   
3. Questionnaire and Interviews Bucki et al. (2016) [43] n = 62; adult care givers; M = 59; 36%; Luxembourg   
Quantitative
No. Instrument Author (year) Sample size, description of study population; age; % male; country Validity Reliability/ Responsiveness/ Sensitivity
4. Secondary Data Analysis Abu-Zaineh & Woode (2018) [44] n = 25,180; young adults: M = 21; 50%; Palestine n.a n.a.
Anand et al. (2005) [41] n = 12,040; adults; 18+; 45%; UK n.a. n.a.
Douptcheva et al. (2014) [45] n = 2814; women; 18+; 0%; Ghana n.a. n.a.
Tellez et al. (2016) [46] n = 8841; older adults; 60+; n.a.; France n.a. n.a.
Zwierzchowski and Panek (2020) [47] n = 25,830; adults; 16+; n.a.; Poland n.a. n.a.
5. ICECAP/ ICECAP-O Coast et al. (2008) [31] n = 255; older adults; 65+; 56%; UK n.a. n.a.
Coast et al. (2008) [49] n = 314; older adults; 65+; 54%; UK Construct:
EQ-5D overall value and
Attachment χ2 = .42
Security χ2 = .008 (p < .01)
Role χ2 = <.001 (p < .01)
Enjoyment χ2 = <.001 (p < .01)
Control χ2 = <.001 (p < .01)
n.a.
Flynn et al. (2011) [50] n = 809; older adults; 65+; 49%; UK Construct: comparison ICECAP-O tariff scores with qualitative interviews of attribute development [51] and subjective wellbeing literature provides construct validity.  
Couzner et al. (2012) [52] n = 82; older adults in rehabilitation; M = 76; 50%; Australia Construct:
EQ-5D overall value and
Attachment χ2 = .741
Security χ2 = .088
Role χ2 = .092
Enjoyment χ2 = .058
Control χ2 = .043 (p < .05)
ICECAP-O and CTM-3 Spearman’s r = .23; (p < .05)and EQ-5D Spearman’s r = .44; (p < .001)
n.a.
Makai et al. (2012) [53] n = 122; older adults; M = 82; 32%; Netherlands Convergent:
ICECAP-O and nursing version of
EQ-5D r = .48 (p < .001)
Overall life r = .52 (p < .001)
ICECAP-O and family version of
EQ-5D r = .57 (p < .001)
Overall life r = .48 (p < .001)
n.a.
Davis et al. (2013) [54] n = 215; older adults post falls; M = 79; n.a.; Canada Construct:Two factor analysis indicated two separate but correlated factors, supporting that the instruments provide complementary data with RMSEA (90% CI) = .05 (.00–.09) n.a.
Makai et al. (2013) [55] n = 275; older adults post hospitalization; 65+; 46%; Netherlands Convergent:
Correlation ICECAP-O significant to
Cantril’s ladder r = .51(p < .001)
SPF_IL r = .60(p < .001)
EQ-5D r = .40(p < .001)
SF-20 r = .47(p < .001)
Discriminant:
EQ 5D
Top 50% M = .90 (p < .01)
Bottom 50% M = .80
Multimorbid
Max. 1 chronic condition M = .89 (p < .01)
More than 2 conditions
M = .82
n.a.
Horwood et al. (2014) [56] n = 20; older adults with hip/knee replacement; M = 70; 30%; UK Face:
Majority of participants had no problems completing the measure
n.a.
Hörder et al. (2016) [57] n = 40; older adults; 70; 48%; Sweden n.a. Test-retest:
ICC = .80
systematic disagreement Cohen’s κ (95% CI)
Attachment κ = .34; −.17 (−.35 – -.03) (significant)
Security κ = .22; .05 (−.11–.20)
Role κ = .41; .00 (−.16–.16)
Enjoyment κ = .24; −.02 (−.19–.14)
Control κ = .17; −.13 (−.32–.05)
Davis et al. (2017) [54] n = 247; older adults with impaired mobility; 80 ± 7; 37%; Canada n.a. Responsiveness:
Change Baseline to 12-Month follow up:
M = −.016 (p < .05); r = .50
Relation of change divided by faller status:
Change Baseline to 12-Month follow up, faller: M = -.13
Change Baseline to 12-Month follow up, non-faller: M = .00
Sarabia-Cobo et al. (2017) [58] n = 217; older adults with dementia; M = 87; 19%; Spain Convergent:
Correlation EQ-5D + C to
ICECAP-O tariff: r = .62 (p < .01)
Attachment r = .11 (p < .05)
Security r = .32 (p < .05)
Role r = .71 (p < .01)
Enjoyment r = .56 (p < .01)
Control r = .41 (p < .01)
Discriminant:
Depression severity
Mildmean M = .72 (p < .01)
Moderate M = .63
Severe M = .50
Care level
Low M = .70 (p < .01)
Medium M = .59
High M = .39
Internal consistency:
α = .820
Franklin et al. (2018) [59] n = 584; older adults; 65+; 38%; UK Construct:
OLS model with EQ-5D-3L items as discrete variables, including age, sex and care home explanatory variables produced best overall model: RMSE = .16; R2 = .35
n.a.
Milte et al. (2018) [60] n = 87; older adults following a hip fractur; 60+; 30%; Australia Convergent:
Spearman Correlation EQ-5D-3L scores to (95% CI; p-values)
Attachment: r = .27 (.07–.43; .013)
Security: r = .51 (.32–.67; <.001)
Role: r = .34 (.12–.52; .002)
Enjoyment: r = .26 (.03–.46; .016)
Control: r = .46 (.23–.62; .000)
n.a.
Mitchell et al. (2020) [61] n = 30; adults requiring kidney care; 18+; 77%; UK Process:
Total Errors/Struggles in Areas during Think-aloud study
Attachment: 2
Security: 1
Role: 5
Enjoyment: 2
Control: 0
n.a.
Baji et al. (2020) [62] n = 453; older adults; 65+; 50.1%; Hungary Convergent:
Pearson’s Correlation ICECAP-O scores to EQ-5D-5L r = .65
EQ-VAS r = .50
Happiness-VAS r = .52
Satisfaction with life r = .57
WHO-5 r = .61
SWLS r = .52
Internal-consistency:
Cronbach’s α = .86
Test-retest:
ICC = .97 (95% CI, .94–.98)
Attachment 96.2%
Security 96.2%
Role 90.6%
Enjoyment 94.3%
Control 96.2%
6. ICECAP-A Al-Janabi et al. (2012) [32] n = 36; adults; 18+; 41%; UK n.a. n.a.
Al-Janabi et al. (2013) [63] n = 34; adults; 18+; 47%; UK Face: Individuals largely responded to questions in intended manner and encountered problems on fewer than 10% of the items. n.a.
Al-Janabi et al. (2013) [64] n = 418; adults; M = 51.7; 38%; UK Construct:
Associations between EQ-5D and
Stability χ2 = <.001 (p < .01)
Attachment χ2 = .34
Autonomy χ2 = <.001 (p < .01)
Achievement χ2 = <.001 (p < .01)
Enjoyment χ2 = <.001 (p < .01)
n.a.
Al-Janabi et al. (2015) [65] n = 237; adults; 18+; 52%; UK n.a. Test-retest:
Stability 89.8%; κ = .61
Attachment 88.8%; κ = .57
Autonomy 87.8%; κ = .52
Achievement 88.1%; κ = .53
Enjoyment 88.1%; κ = .54
ICC = .72
Keeley et al. (2015) [66] n = 357; adults with knee pain; M = 64; 49%; UK Construct:
Correlation ICECAP-A to
EQ-5D-3L r = .255
GAD-7 r = −.205
PHQ-8 r = −.190
Responsiveness:
Anchor-based analysis (baseline and 6-months follow-up)
Mean ICECAP-A change (95% CI)
EQ-5D-3L Improved .02 (.002–.042) (p < .05)
EQ-5D-3L no change −.003 (−.128–.007)
EQ-5D-3L worsened −.54 (−.084–-.024) (p < .01)
GAD-7 Improved .020 (.002–.042)
GAD-7 no change -.004 (−.003–-.011)
GAD-7 worsened -.07 (−.11–-.032) (i < .01)
PHQ-8 Improved .014 (−.005–.032)
PHQ-8 no change .003 (−.006–.011)
PHQ-8 worsened -.048 (−.078–-.017) (p < .01)
Goranitis et al. (2016) [67] n = 478; women with irritative lower urinary tract syndrome; M = 55; 0%; UK Convergent:
EQ-5D correlated (p < .01) to
Stability r = .38
Attachment r = .21
Autonomy r = .48
Achievement r = .45
Enjoyment r = .40
ICIQ-OAB correlated (p < .01) to
Stability r = −.23
Attachment r = −.12
Autonomy r = −.19
Achievement r = −.21
Enjoyment r = −.25
Discriminant
ICECAP-A mean score (SD)
Total impact of symptoms
Low M = .86(.14)(p < .01)
Moderate M = .87 (.13)
High M = .81 (.18)
Responsiveness: ICECAP-A Score change baseline to follow-up (SD)
Symptoms’ bother
Increased bother -.05 (.15) (p < .01)
Same bother -.03 (.17)
Lower bother .00 (.15)
Symptoms’ frequency
Improved .00 (.15)
Same level -.039 (.13)
Deteriorated .06(.18) (p < .01)
Goranitis et al. (2016) [68] n = 83; adults with opiate dependence; M = 37; 87%; UK Convergent:
Correlation of ICECAP-A to
Psychological health r = .55 (p < .01)
Physical health r = .36 (p < .01)
Quality of Life r = .55 (p < .01)
Discriminant:
ICECAP-A mean score; ±SD:
Psychological health
High M = .57; ±.19 (p < .01)
Low M = .74; ±.15
Physical health status
High M = .59; ±.20 (p < .01)
Low M = .71; ±.17
Overall Quality of life
High M = .58; ±.19 (p < .01)
Low M = .75; ±.14
Sensitivity:
ICECAP-A mean change baseline to 3-months follow-up; ±SD:
Psychological health
Not improved M = .00; ±.19
Improved M = .08; ±.13 (p < .01)
Physical health status
Not improved M = .04; ±.19
Improved M = .05; ±.13 (p < .05)
Overall Quality of life
Not improved M = .02; ±.17
Improved M = .07; ±.15(p < .05)
Mitchell et al. (2017) [69] n = 617; adults with depression; 18+; 33%; UK   Discriminant:
ICECAP-A mean score to DASS-D
Normal/well M = .84
Mild M = .71
Moderate M = 0.71
Severe M = .64
Very severe M = .47
n.a.
Linton et al. (2018) [70] n = 2501; adults (healthy or with Arthritis, Asthma, Cancer, Depression, Diabetes, hearing problems, heart disease); 18+; 52%; Germany, UK Convergent:
Correlation of ICECAP-A and
EQ-5D-5L Germany r = .62
UK r = .61
SWLS Germany r = .66
UK r = .68
SF-6D Germany r = .64
UK r = .65
  Internal-consistency: (Cronbach’s α) across subsamples Germany; UK
Overall sample α = .83; .85
Healthy α = .78; .80
Arthritis α = .74; .78
Asthma α = .77; .83 Cancer α = .86; .83
Depression α = .78;.79
Diabetes α = .83;.86
Hearing loss α = .74;.84
Heart disease α = .83;.85
Tang et al. (2018) [49] n = 975; adults; 18+/M = 34; 47%; China Construct:Two factor-analysis indicate a different construct between ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L
Correlation of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L
Stability r = .39 (p < .01)
Attachment r = .34 (p < .01)
Autonomy r = .38 (p < .01)
Achievement r = .27 (p < .01)
Enjoyment r = .38 (p < .01)
Internal-consistency:
Cronbach’s α = .799
Holst-Kristensen et al. (2020) [51] n = 332; adults; 18+/M = 57; 55%; Denmark n.a. Test-retest:
Stability 91.4%; κ = .58
Attachment 90.5%; κ = .66
Autonomy 89.3%; κ = .46
Achievement 91.0%; κ = .57
Enjoyment 90.0%; κ = .60
Individual: ICC = .86 (95% CI .83–.88)
Group: ICC = .92 (95% CI .91–.94)
Shahataheri et al. (2020) [43] n = 1200; adults; M = 45.6; 45.6%; Iran Convergent:
Polychoric correlation of
EQ-5D-5L Scores to:
ICECAP-A Scores: r = .48
Stability: r = .34
Attachment: r = .19
Autonomy: r = .41
Achievement: r = .53
Enjoyment: r = .40
EQ-VAS Scores to:
ICECAP-A Scores: r = .49
Stability: r = .39
Attachment: r = .28
Autonomy: r = .33
Achievement: r = .45
Enjoyment: r = .40
Discriminant:
ICECAP-A mean score; ±SD:
Education
Primary/ High School M = .64; ±.26 (p < .001)
Diploma M = .79; ±.15
University Degree M = .81; ±.15
Gender
Male M = .76; ±.16 (p = .185)
Female M = .79; ±.16
EQ-VAS (health Status)
< 70 M = .66; ±.18 (p < .001)
> 70 M = .81; ±.14
Internal-consistency:
Cronbach’s α for
Capability Index Score α = .82
Stability α = .77
Attachment α = .80
Autonomy α = .81
Achievement α = .77
Enjoyment α = .78
Test-retest:
ICC for
Capability Index Score =.90 (95% CI, .89–.91)
Stability =.96 (95% CI, .95–.96)
Attachment = .94 (95% CI, .93–.95)
Autonomy = .93 (95% CI, .92–.94)
Achievement = .96 (95% CI, .95–.96)
Enjoyment = .95 (95% CI, .95–.96)
Mah et al. (2020) [29] n = 364; adults with Spinal Cord Injury; 18+/M = 50.4; 63%; Canada Convergent:
Pearson’s correlation ICECAP-A Scores to:
AQoL-8D r = .74
EQ-5D-5L r = .57
HUI-3 r = .50
SF- 6D r = .58
Discriminant:
Confirmed for constructs (p < .001): General Health; Mental Health; Social Functioning; Role/activity limitations; Independence (self-care); Independence (mobility); Life Satisfaction; Secondary Health Conditions; Paid Employment; Happiness; Household Income
n.a.
Mitchell et al. (2020) [71] n = 30; adults requiring kidney care; 18+; 77%; UK Process:
Total Errors/Struggles in Areas during Think-aloud study
Stability: 2
Attachment: 0
Autonomy: 2
Achievement: 2
Enjoyment: 2
n.a.
Baji et al. (2020) [62] n = 1568; adults 18+; 50%; Hungary Convergent:
Pearson’s Correlation ICECAP-A scores to EQ-5D-5L r = .57
EQ-VAS r = .52
Happiness-VAS r = .50
Satisfaction with life r = .52
WHO-5 r = .53
SWLS r = .45
Internal-consistency:
Cronbach’s α = .863
Test-retest:
ICC = .94 (95% CI, .90–.97)
Stability 85.5%
Attachment 95.5%
Autonomy 91.5%
Achievement 91.5%
Enjoyment 93.5%
7. ICECAP-SCM Sutton & Coast (2014) [33] n = 23; older adults; 65+; n.a.; UK n.a. n.a.
8. ICECAP-FC Al-Janabi (2018) [34] n = 943; adults with long-term after-effects of meningitis; M = 53; 25%; UK n.a. n.a.
9. OCAP Anand et al. (2009) [35] n = 1048; adults; 18+; n.a.; UK n.a. n.a.
10. OCAP-18 Lorgelly et al. (2015) [42] n = 198 (qualitative), n = 1048 (quantitative); adults; M = 46; 63%; UK Construct:
Pairwise correlation with EQ-5D-3L = .576 (p < .001)
n.a.
11. OxCAP-MH Simon et al. (2013) [36] n = 333; adults with a mental illness; M = 40; 67%; UK Convergent:
Significant correlation of OxCAP-MH scores with
GAF r = .25
EQ-5D VAS r = .51
EQ-5D-3L r = .41
n.a.
Vergunst et al. (2017) [49] n = 172; adults with psychosis; M = 38; 72%; UK Convergent:
Correlation of OxCAP-MH with
EQ-5D-3L r = .452 (p < .001)
EQ-5D VAS r = .522 (p < .001)
BPRS r = −.413 (p < .001)
GAF r = .240 (p < .001)
SIX r = .118
Internal consistency
Cronbach’s α = .79
Test-retest (1-week apart):
ICC = .86 (p < .001)
Adjusted R2 = .73
Sensitivity:
Baseline (T1) M = 67.7 (13.8)
12 months follow up (T2) M = 70.8 (11.85)
One-SEM values T1 = 6.47; T2 = 6.49
Simon et al. (2018) [30] n = 10; adults with mental illness; M = 37; 40%; UK n.a. n.a.
Laszewska et al. (2019) [73] N = 159; adults with mental illness; M = 45; 36%; Austria Convergent:
Correlation of OxCAP-MH change scores with
EQ-5D-3L r = .30 (p < .05)
EQ-5D VAS r = .31 (p < .05)
BSI-18 r = −.42 (p < .05)
GAF r = .15 (p < .05)
Mini-ICF-APP r = −.10
Discriminant:
OxCAP-MH mean score (SD):
Multi-morbidity
one Axis diagnosis M = 68.2(14.4)
≥2 Axis diagnoses M = 56.0(16.8) (p < .001)
Rating of QoL
Very poor/poor
M = 48.0(15.4)
Neither poor or good M = 65.3(11.5) (p < .001)
Good/very good M = 74.3(11.2) (p < .001)
Test-retest (after 30 days)
Cronbach’s α = .85
ICC = .80 (95%CI .69–.87)
12. CQ-CMH Sacchetto et al. (2016) [37] N = 50; adults with mental illness; M = 42; 70%; Portugal Face: 15 participants confirmed familiarity with language used and relevance of addressed issues. Questionnaire rated as understandable and easy to fill out but too extensive. n.a.
13. ACQ-CMH-98 Sacchetto et al. (2018) [38] n = 332; adults with mental illness; M = 44; 59%; Portugal Content:
Participants (n = 15) CVI: .89
Convergent:
Pearson’s correlation with
WHOQOL-Bref r = .60 (p < .001)
K6 r = .46 (p < .001)
Discriminant:
Pearson’s correlation with
RAS r = −.17 (p = .046)
Test-retest:
55% of items high (r = .9 to ≥6)
45% of items low (r = < 6)
ANOVA test significant for 5 items (p < .05)
Internal consistency:
Optimism α = .91
Affiliation α = .84
Activism α = .84
Practical Reason α = .76
Self-sufficiency and Self-determination α = .76
Family α = .78
14. Capability-based questionnaire Kinghorn et al. (2015) [39] n = 16; adults with chronic pain; 33+; 43%; UK n.a. n.a.
15. CADA Ferrer et al. (2014) [40] n = 109; adults with obesity and diabetes mellitus; M = 49; 22%; USA n.a. Internal-consistency:
Convenience, cost: α = .78
Neighborhood opportunity: α = .78
Barriers: α = .75
Knowledge: α = .83
Time Pressure: α = .75
Family support: α = .62
Spouse/partner: α = .65
Nonfamily support: α = .80
  1. BPRS Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, CTM-3 3-Item Care Transition Measure, DASS-D Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, GAF Global Assessment of Functioning, ICC Intra-class correlation coefficient, K6 Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, M Mean, OLS ordinary least square, PHQ-8 Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale, RAS Recovery Assessment Scale, SEM Structural equation modeling, SIX Objective Social Outcomes Index