Table 5. Validity of the Participation Instruments .

Instrument	Validity--Factorial structure	Validity--convergent correlations	Validity--discriminant groups	Content Validity Index (CVR*)
I-APS	NR	NR	NR	0.84
IMPACT-S	The principal components analysis of the 9 scale scores resulted in 2 components with an eigenvalue above 1.0. A strong first component had an eigenvalue of 5.6 and explained 63.0% of the variance. A weak second component had an eigenvalue of 1.1 and explained 12.9% of the variance.a	0.61–0.88. tested by computing Spearman correlations between IMPACT-S and WHODAS-II scales	NR	NR
WHODAS-II	Unidimensionality. Analysis of the 36 items shows that overall items were found to fit the model producing item mean in fit statistics of 0.99 (SD1 0.39) and mean outfit statistics of 1.00 (Sd 0.51) and thus performed satisfactorily. Overall, 86% of the items fit the Rasch measurement model (4)	1 out of 7 hypothesized convergent associations between WHODAS-II and CHART was confirmed (WHODAS II ‘self-care” with CHART ‘physical’) and none of the 6 hypotheized divergent associations were weak enough to present ‘no relationship’ (rs<0.20) (4)	The WHODAS-II was able to discriminate between individuals with high and low impairment SCI in terms of getting around, self-care, life activities (household and work) and total score (4)	NR
USER-P	NR, the SCI sample was too small to perform factor analysis (37)	Spearman correlation coefficients between the USER-Participation scales were below 0.60 (range 0.39–0.46), showing that they cover different aspects of participation. Concurrent validity of the USER-Participation was more than 75% (83.3%) of the 24 hypotheses (Spearman correlation coefficients above or below 0.60) with the other measurement instruments were confirmed (24)	Significant differences demonstrated in levels of participation between persons with different health conditions and different levels of functional limitations. Overall, the Restrictions score was sensitive to variations(37)	NR
IPA	Factor analysis with a four-factor solution demonstrated that the structure of subscales would be best interpreted according to the following dimensions of perceived handicap: social relationships, autonomy in self-care, mobility and leisure, and family role (the former subscales family role and financial independence)	NR	The distribution of participants ranged from 2.45 to –6.35 logits. When the whole range of the items is considered in relation to the participant distribution, it shows that persons’ perceived participation is not completely covered by the range of the item values, and items that might show differentiatiation ofpersons perceiving most participation are missing	NR
PM-PAC	Confirmatory factor analysis ( after excluding 3 items) showed that the data fit a model consisted of seven participation domains as follows: mobility; role functioning; community, social, and civic life; domestic life; economic life; interpersonal relationships; and communication	NR	Pilot tests of known-groups validity indicated that PM-PAC subscales generally variated on the concept of condition severity and underlying ability for mobility	NR

*CVR= Content validity ratio

^a=One component consisted of Knowledge, General tasks, Communication, Relationships and Major life areas and the other factor included Mobility, Self-care, domestic life and community life.

^b= tested by computing Spearman correlations between IMPACT-S and WHODAS-II scales