재활치료과학 (Therapeutic Science for Rehabilitation)

  • 제10권2호
  • /
  • Pages.109-128
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2635-9340(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2671-4329(eISSN)
대한신경계작업치료학회 (Korean Society of Neurological Occupational Therapy)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

한국판 일상생활활동중심 작업기반 신경행동평가(A-ONE)의 개발 및 평가

Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Korean Version of the A-ONE

  • 강재원 (플로리다대학교 작업치료학과) ;
  • 박혜연 (연세대학교 소프트웨어디지털헬스케어융합대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • 김정란 (가톨릭관동대학교 휴먼서비스대학 치매전문재활학과) ;
  • 박지혁 (연세대학교 소프트웨어디지털헬스케어융합대학 작업치료학과)
  • Kang, Jaewon (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, University of Florida) ;
  • Park, Hae Yean (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Software and Digital Healthcare Convergence, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Jung-Ran (Dept. of Dementia Prevention and Rehabilitation, College of Human Service, Catholic Kwandong University) ;
  • Park, Ji-Hyuk (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Software and Digital Healthcare Convergence, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2020.05.02
  • 심사 : 2020.09.04
  • 발행 : 2021.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적 : 본 연구는 타문화권에서 개발된 일상생활활동중심 작업기반 신경행동평가(A-ONE)를 국내 임상에서 사용할 수 있도록 한국판을 개발하고 한국 환자에게 적용하여 신뢰도와 타당도를 검증하고자 하였다. 연구방법 : 영문판 A-ONE을 한국어로 번역하고 문화적 차이를 검토하였다. 완성된 한국판을 13명의 작업치료학과 교수와 작업치료사에게 국내 적용 가능성을 확인받고, 뇌졸중 환자 42명을 대상으로 신뢰도와 타당성을 검증하였다. 결과 : 총 3개의 문항을 국내 문화에 알맞도록 수정한 결과, 한국판 A-ONE은 Index at the item level(I-CVI)=0.92-1.00을 보이며 평가 문항들이 국내 문화를 잘 대표하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. Functional Independence Measure(FIM)과 상관관계는 의사소통영역을 제외하고 r=0.52-0.77(p>0.01)로 높게 나타난 반면, Lowenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment(LOTCA)와는 전반적으로 유의미한 상관관계를 보이지 않았다(p>0.05). 내적일치도는 기능적 독립성이 Cronbach's α=0.58-0.93, 신경행동손상이 α=0.42-0.93을 보였다. 검사-재검사 신뢰도는 기능적 독립성이 Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC)=0.79-1.00, 신경행동손상이 ICC=0.74-1.00으로 높은 수준을 보였다. 마지막으로, 검사자간 신뢰도는 기능적 독립성이 ICC=0.75-1.00, 신경행동손상이 ICC=0.72-1.00으로 높은 신뢰도를 보였다. 결론 : 한국판 A-ONE은 뇌졸중 환자의 일상생활활동 수행능력과 신경행동손상의 종류 및 손상정도를 평가하기 위해 국내 임상에서 사용될 수 있는 유용한 평가도구이다.

Objective : The purpose of this study was to develop a Korean version of the Activities of Daily Living (ADL)-focused Occupation-Based Neurobehavioral Evaluation (A-ONE) through cross-cultural adaptation and examine its validity and reliability. Methods : This study translated the A-ONE into Korean and performed cross-cultural adaptation for the Korean population. After the development of the Korean version of the A-ONE, cross-cultural and concurrent validities were analyzed. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability were also evaluated. Results : We adapted three items to the Korean culture. The Korean version of the A-ONE showed high cross-cultural validity with a content validity index (I-CVI) >0.9. It correlated with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (r=0.52-0.77, p<0.001), except for communication. Cronbach's α was 0.58-0.93 for the functional independence scale (FI) and 0.42-0.93 for the neurobehavioral specific impairment subscale (NBSIS). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated high test-retest and inter-rater reliability for FI (ICC=0.79-1.00 and 0.75-1.00, respectively) and NBSIS (ICC=0.74-1.00 and 0.72-1.00, respectively). Conclusion : The Korean version of the A-ONE is well adapted to the Korean culture and has good validity and reliability. It is recommended to evaluate ADL performance skills and neurobehavioral impairments simultaneously in Korea.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Arnadottir, G. (1990). The brain and behavior: Assessing cortical dysfunction through activities of daily living (ADL). St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
  2. Arnadottir, G. (2010). Measuring the impact of body functions on occupational performance: Validation of the ADL-focused Occupation-based Neurobehavioral Evaluation (A-ONE) (Doctoral dissertation). Umea university, Umea.
  3. Arnadottir, G., Lofgren, B., & Fisher, A. G. (2010). Difference in impact of neurobehavioural dysfunction on activities of daily living performance between right and left hemispheric stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(10), 903-907. doi:10.2340/16501977-0621
  4. Arnadottir, G., Lofgren, B., & Fisher, A. G. (2012). Neurobehavioral functions evaluated in naturalistic contexts: Rasch analysis of the A-ONE neurobehavioral impact scale. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19(5), 439-449. doi:10.3109/11038128.2011.638674
  5. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  6. Carter, R., & Lubinsky, J. (2015). Statistical analysis of relationships: The basics. In Carter, R., & Lubinsky, J. (Eds.), Rehabilitation research: Principles and applications (5th ed., pp. 318-325). St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
  7. Conti, J. (2017). Cognitive assessment: A challenge for occupational therapists in Brazil. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 11(2), 121-128. doi:10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-020004
  8. Duffy, L., Gajree, S., Langhorne, P., Stott, D. J., & Quinn, T. J. (2013). Reliability (Inter-rater Agreement) of the Barthel Index for Assessment of stroke survivors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke, 44(2), 462-468. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678615
  9. Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 435-441. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021
  10. Hamilton, B. B., Laughlin, J. A., Fiedler, R. C., & Granger, C. V. (1994). Interrater reliability of the 7-level functional independence measure (FIM). Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 26(3), 115-119.
  11. Hodges, M. R., Kirsch, N. L., Newman, M. W., & Pollack, M. E. (2010). Automatic assessment of cognitive impairment through electronic observation of object usage. In Floroen P., Kruger A., Spasojevic M. (Eds.), Pervasive computing (8th ed., pp. 192-209). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12654-3_12
  12. Jia, Z. Y., Wang, W., Nian, X. W., Zhang, X. X., Huang, Z., Cui, J., & Xu, W. D. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the simplified Chinese version of the knee outcome survey activities of daily living scale. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 32(10), 2009-2016. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.068
  13. Johnstone, B., & Frank, R. G. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment in rehabilitation: Current limitations and applications. NeuroRehabilitation, 5(1), 75-86. doi:10.3233/NRE-1995-5107
  14. Kang, J. (2017). Validity and reliability of the cross-culturally adapted the Korean version of the ADL-focused occupation-based neurobehavioral evaluation (A-ONE) (Master's thesis). Yonsei University, Seoul.
  15. Katz, N., Itzkovich, M., Averbuch, S., & Elazar, B. (1989). Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) battery for brain-injured patients: Reliability and validity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43(3), 184-192. doi:10.5014/ajot.43.3.184
  16. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  17. Kwon, Y. C. (1989). Korean version of mini-mental state examination (MMSE-K). Journal of the Korean Neurological Association, 28(1), 123-135.
  18. Law, M., Baptiste, S., McColl, M., Opzoomer, A., Polatajko, H., & Pollock, N. (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 82-87. doi:10.1177/000841749005700207
  19. Lohr, K. N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015291021312
  20. Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index: A simple index of independence useful in scoring improvement in the rehabilitation of the chronically ill. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61-65.
  21. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
  22. Roy, J. S., Esculier, J. F., & Maltais, D. B. (2014). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the knee outcome survey-activities of daily living scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 28(6), 614-623. doi:10.1177/0269215513511342
  23. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline: Validation of instruments or scales. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  24. Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I. A., & Zait, A. (2015). How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679-686. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9
  25. Yoo, E. Y., Jung, M. Y., Park, S. Y., & Choi, E. H. (2006). Current trends of occupational therapy assessment tool by Korean occupational therapist. The Journal of Korean Society of Occupational Therapy, 14(3), 27-37.