Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T18:51:42.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Disability assessment

from Psychology, health and illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2014

Raymond Fitzpatrick
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Susan Ayers
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Andrew Baum
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Chris McManus
Affiliation:
St Mary's Hospital Medical School
Stanton Newman
Affiliation:
University College and Middlesex School of Medicine
Kenneth Wallston
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University School of Nursing
John Weinman
Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's
Robert West
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

The concept of disability

Disability is a broad and sometimes contentious term. It provides an apparently neutral method of describing limitations and difficulties that individuals may have of functioning in their environment. However to individuals with disabilities, and to organizations that represent them, the term ‘disability’ appears unnecessarily negative with implications of deviance and abnormality. A plethora of approaches to disability span those that at one extreme define disability as inherent properties of individuals, through to the other extreme that considers disability a harmful social construction which labels and oppresses particular minorities.

Fundamental changes to how we view disability are revealed in the evolution of the World Health Organization's thinking about health and disease. In 1980 it produced what was at the time considered a progressive and enlightened International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH). The ICIDH schema defines impairment as any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function. Impairment therefore refers to failure at the level of organs or systems of the body, with impairment usually arising from disease. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal. The emphasis is therefore on things that individuals cannot do. Handicap is any disadvantage for an individual, resulting from impairment or disability that limits the fulfilment of a role for that individual. It refers to the social disadvantages that may follow from disease.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R., Carter, W. & Gilson, B. (1981). The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care, 19, 787–805.Google Scholar
Brazier, J., Harper, R. & Jones, N. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. British Medical Journal, 305, 160–4.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control, and Prevention. (2000). Measuring healthy days. Atlanta, GA: CDC.
Ethgen, O., Kahler, K. H., Kong, S. X., Reginster, J. Y. & Wolfe, F. (2002). The effect of health related quality of life on reported use of health care resources in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Rheumatology, 29, 1147–55.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, R., Peto, V., Jenkinson, C., Greenhall, R. & Hyman, N. (1997). Health-related quality of life in Parkinson's disease: a study of out-patient clinic attenders. Movement Disorders, 12, 916–22.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, R., Norquist, J. & Jenkinson, C. (2004). Distribution-based criteria for change in health-related quality of life in Parkinson's disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 40–4.Google Scholar
Fries, J., Spitz, P. & Young, D. (1982). The dimensions of health outcomes: the Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales. Journal of Rheumatology, 9, 789–93.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. & Meadows, K. (1999). The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5, 401–16.Google Scholar
Harwood, R., Gompertz, P. & Ebrahim, S. (1994). Handicap one year after stroke: validity of a new scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 57, 825–9.Google Scholar
Hershkovitz, A., Beloosesky, Y., Brill, S. & Gottlieb, D. (2004) Is a day hospital rehabilitation programme associated with reduction of handicap in stroke patients?Clinical Rehabilitation, 8, 261–6.Google Scholar
Hsueh, I. P., Lin, J. H., Jeng, J. S. & Hsieh, C. L. (2002). Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 73, 188–90.Google Scholar
Katz, S., Ford, A., Moskowitz, R., Jackson, D. & Jaffer, M. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged: the Index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 85, 914–19.Google Scholar
Katz, J., Larson, M., Phillips, C., Fossel, A. & Liang, M. (1992). Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Medical Care, 30, 917–25.Google Scholar
Keysor, J., Sokka, T., Krishnan, E., Callahan, L. F. & Pincus, T. (2004). Patient questionnaires and formal education level as prospective predictors of mortality over 10 years in 97% of 1416 patients with rheumatoid arthritis from 15 United States private practices. Journal of Rheumatology, 31, 229–34.Google Scholar
Lindeboom, R., Vermeulen, M., Holman, R. & Haan, R. J. (2003). Activities of daily living instruments: optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology, 60, 738–42.Google Scholar
Mao, H. F., Hsueh, I. P., Tang, P. F., Sheu, C. F. & Hsieh, C. L. (2002). Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke, 33, 1022–7.Google Scholar
Messier, S. P., Loeser, R. F., Miller, G. D.et al. (2004). Exercise and dietary weight loss in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the Arthritis, Diet, and Activity Promotion Trial. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 50, 1501–10.Google Scholar
Noreau, L., Desrosiers, J., Robichaud, L.et al. (2004). Measuring social participation: reliability of the LIFE-H in older adults with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 346–52.Google Scholar
Patel, K. K., Veenstra, D. L. & Patrick, D. L. (2003). A review of selected patient-generated outcome measures and their application in clinical trials. Value and Health, 6, 595–603.Google Scholar
Pincus, T., Brooks, R. & Callahan, L. (1991). Reliability of grip strength, walking time and button test performed according to a standard protocol. Journal of Rheuamtology 18, 997–1000.Google Scholar
Pittock, S. J., Mayr, W. T., McClelland, R. L.et al. (2004). Quality of life is favorable for most patients with multiple sclerosis: a population-based cohort study. Archives of Neurology, 61, 679–86.Google Scholar
Tugwell, P., Bombardier, C., Buchanan, W.et al. (1990). Methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: impact on quality of life assessed by traditional standard item and individualized patient preference health status questionnaire. Archives of Internal Medicine, 150, 59–62.Google Scholar
Port, I. G., Ketelaar, M., Schepers, V. P., Bos, G. A. & Lindeman, E. (2004). Monitoring the functional health status of stroke patients: the value of the Stroke-Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 635–40.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. K., Ehrenberg, B. L., Tran, T. A.et al. (1997). Patient-based health status measurement in clinical practice: a study of its impact on epilepsy patients' care. Quality of Life Research, 6, 329–41.Google Scholar
Wiebe, S., Guyatt, G., Weaver, B., Matijevic, S. & Sidwell, C. (2003). Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 52–60.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: author.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×