4.0 Article

Field trial of ICF version for children and youth (ICF-CY) in Sweden: Logical coherence, developmental issues and clinical use

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROREHABILITATION
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 3-11

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/17518420902777001

关键词

ICF-CY; logical coherence; clinical use; developmental issues; intervention

资金

  1. Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare
  2. Swedish council for working life and social research [Dnr 2004-1120]
  3. MHADIE (Measuring Health and Disability in Europe) [FP6]
  4. EC [SP24-CT-2004-513708]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: For ICF-CY to be used in clinical practice several issues have to be resolved concerning the logical coherence in the model, developmental and functional issues as well as clinical feasibility. Purpose: The aim is to investigate feasibility of ICF-CY as expressed by ICF-CY questionnaires in assessment prior to intervention. Methods: One hundred and thirty-nine professionals working with intervention for children with disabilities used ICF-CY questionnaires in assessment. The professionals rated and commented on the feasibility of ICF-CY and ICF-CY questionnaire. Logical coherence, developmental issues and clinical use were investigated. Results: The logical coherence on component level was good (KMO = 0.126, p<0.005). To investigate developmental and functional issues in the model children, four age groups were compared with the help of one-way ANOVA. Significant differences were found between children younger than 3 and children 3-6 and 7-12 in four chapters in the component Activities/Participation. Professionals consider that ICF-CY is feasible in intervention but experience difficulties when using the components and qualifiers in the ICF-CY and suggest changes. Discussion: ICF-CY as expressed in ICF-CY questionnaires is a feasible tool in assessment and intervention. However, several issues can be developed and discussed to facilitate implementation of ICF-CY in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据