(PEM-CY):
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
This finding is consistent with
previous research which demonstrated that youth perceive their
activity and participation levels
differently from their parents
(McDougall, Bedell & Wright,
2013).
34
This study supports that, in addition to parent perspectives, youth
perspectives are also imperative to
shedding further light on the complex construct of participation
(Bedell, Khetani, Cousins, Coster &
Law, 2011). The theme wisdom of
youth highlighted the unique and
valuable perspective of youth as
well as the importance of self-report to capture the evolution of
participation as youth mature. In
addition, our quantitative findings
support the structure of the
PEM-CY (i.e., measuring participation in 3 different settings) and its
applicability in accounting for
youth participation. For example,
in the community setting, as
opposed to the home and school
settings, relatively lower levels of
participation were observed and
most “never” responses were
noted. These findings are in-line
with previous research demonstrating that levels of community participation decrease with increasing
age and are more likely to be
influenced by environmental
barriers (Law, Petrenchik, King &
Hurley, 2007; Jarus, et al., 2010;
Anaby et al., 2014). This lends
preliminary support to the
construct validity of a youth-report
version of the PEM-CY. Having a
youth-report version to capture
participation profile will allow for a
more accurate representation of
the barriers.
In terms of relevancy and clarity of
the measure, the overall VAS
scores in combination with positive
comments seen in the field of
strengths theme demonstrate that
the majority of items were clear
and examples were relevant to
youth responders. Nonetheless,
the theme conceptual confusion
emerged as participants reported
confusing terminology and unclear
items in the PEM-CY. For example,
the concept of participation in the
home environment and the term
“involvement” were reported as
unclear. Further confusion in the
home setting was related to items
pertaining to technology. As
explained above, several items
were addressed in the final
changes in order to make them
more current. The confusion in
respect to involvement and participation in specific environmental
settings emphasizes the importance of explaining the purpose of
the assessment when using it with
a youth clientele and pointing out
the stated definitions in the
instructions.
In relation to defining concepts,
the topic of physical activities arose
as a potentially separate cluster
from other classroom activities. In
particular for youth with disabilities, gym class can impose different
barriers to participation. However,
the researchers acknowledge this
change may not align with
previously defined concepts of
categories and clusters of activities
(Coster et al., 2012). This warrants
further investigation and could be
incorporated into further discussion about domains of activity.
STUDY LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
The main limitation is the sample
population, which cannot be
deemed representative of all youth
between 12 and 17 years of age. All
the participants without disability
Erg-go! REVUE DES ERGOTHÉRAPEUTES DU QUÉBEC
were female, and most of the participants with disabilities had an
orthopaedic impairment and none
with severe cognitive impairment.
Future research should be carried
out with a larger sample, and
include more youth with disabilities to validate use of the youth-report and determine inclusion criteria and functional level for application. Once a more validated youth
self-report version has been established, psychometric properties
should be evaluated, parent-youth
reports should be compared and
the revised version should be then
adapted to the Quebec context.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND
CONCLUSIONS
A youth version of the PEM-CY
would allow occupational therapists to better understand the
interests and habits of teenagers.
Clinically, the results would complement findings from interviews,
help in goal setting, and in tailoring
intervention plans to be client-centered. This revised version can be
used in occupational therapy, but
may also be helpful in other
healthcare disciplines or, alternatively, in a variety of settings (e.g.
rehabilitation centers, schools and
recreational centers) for the
purpose of program evaluation.
Overall, the findings of this study
provide preliminary support for a
youth version of the PEM-CY.
Although further investigation is
required, it is clear that youth are
willing and capable self-reporters
and that first-hand perspectives of
participation are of value for developing client-centered intervention
plans geared at improving participation for youth with and without
disabilities.
OCTOBRE 2014_NO.3
REFERENCES
- Anaby D, Law M, Coster W., Bedell G, Kehtani M, Avery
L and Teplicky R. (2014). The mediating role of the environment in explaining participation of youth with and
without disabilities across home, school and community. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
95(5):908-917.
- Bedell, G., Coster, W., Law, M., Liljenquist, K., Kao, Y.-C.,
Teplicky, R., . . . Khetani, M. A. (2013). Community Participation, Supports, and Barriers of School-Age Children
With and Without Disabilities. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(2), 315-323. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.024
- Bedell, G., Khetani, M., Coster, J., Law, M., & Cousins,
M. (2012). Measures of participation in community,
social and civic life for children with disabilities. Measures of outcomes and their determinants for children
and youth with developmental disabilities.
- Bedell, G. M., Khetani, M. A., Cousins, M. A., Coster, W.
J., & Law, M. C. (2011). Parent perspectives to inform
development of measures of children's participation
and environment. Archives of physical medicine and
rehabilitation, 92(5), 765-773.
- CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research.
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.canchild.ca/en
- Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
of Greater Montreal. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://