Table 2.
Comparisons of the psychometric properties of the Italian version of PRPS and those found in the original study [8] (BI stands for Barthel Index, FIM for motor domain of the functional independence measure, SF-36 for Short Form, PH for physical health, MH for mental health, ICC is intra-class correlation coefficient, R stands for Pearson’s correlation coefficient in the original study and for Spearman correlation coefficient in our study, 10S stands for ten sessions of therapy).
| Psychometric Properties of PRPS | Results of the Italian Version of PRPS | Results of the Original Study on PRPS [8] |
|---|---|---|
| Mean PRPS score | 4.91 ± 1.03 (range: 1–6) | 4.73 ± 0.76 (range not reported) |
| PRPS score increment | From 4.78 ± 1.24 to 4.87 ± 1.13 in 9 sessions (p = 0.47, Wilcoxon test) From to 4.78 ± 1.24 to 5.13 ± 0.79 in all sessions (p = 0.04, Wilcoxon test) |
From 4.29 ± 0.93 to 4.67 ± 1.04 in 9 sessions (p < 0.0001, t-test) |
| Inter-rater reliability | ICC = 0.926 Cronbach’s alpha = 0.962 |
ICC = 0.91 for occupational therapists ICC = 0.96 for physical therapists |
| Intra-rater reliability | ICC = 0.844, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.982 (first 10S) ICC = 0.756, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.969 (last 10S) |
Not assessed |
| Concurrent validity |
R = 0.633 (p < 0.001) with BI R = −0.400 (p = 0.023) with age R = 0.518 (p = 0.002) with SF-36PH R = 0.433 (p = 0.013) with SF-36MH |
R = 0.38 (p < 0.001) with FIM R = −0.21 (p < 0.001) with age |
| Predictive Validity |
R = 0.358 (p = 0.045) with BI-effectiveness R = 0.222 (p = 0.222) with SF36PH-effectiveness R = 0.035 (p = 0.851) with SF36MH-effectiveness |
R = 0.32 (p < 0.001) with change in FIM R = −0.13 (p < 0.05) with length of stay |