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 | ||