Cross-sectional study validates a Mandarin version of a physical activity scale for individuals with spinal cord injury in China, indicating its reliability and usefulness.
ObjectiveTo translate the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities into Mandarin according to Brislin guidelines and to examine its reliability and validity.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingsTwo rehabilitation centers in China.ParticipantsA convenience sample of 208 adults with spinal cord injury.Main MeasuresA total of 208 participants completed the Chinese version of the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities at the first measurement. One week later, 122 of them completed both the scale and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form. Construct validity, criterion-related validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, goodness of fit of items, and differential item functioning were evaluated in this study.ResultsFactor analysis found a four-factor structure, including household activities, moderate to vigorous intensity activities, mild activities, and work-related activities. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the Chinese version of the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities was 0.795. A significant correlation was found between Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities and International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (r = 0.842, p<0.05). The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.814 (P < 0.001). Three rounds of Rasch analyses were conducted in this study. The results indicated that the Rasch model for the questionnaire had a good fit.ConclusionThe Chinese version of the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities is a reliable and valid scale for assessing physical activity among individuals with spinal cord injury in China.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: