Research Article  |   May 2014
Interrater Reliability and Clinical Utility of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC–PART) in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting
Author Affiliations
  • Camilla Radia-George, MOT, is Manager, Subacute Ambulatory Services, La Trobe University, 183 Wattletree Road, Victoria 3144 Australia; crgeorge@cabrini.com.au, radiageorge@yahoo.co.uk
  • Christine Imms, PhD, MSR, is Professor of Occupational Therapy, Head of Allied and Public Health, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria
  • Nicholas F. Taylor, PhD, is Professor of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Eastern Health, Allied Health Research Office, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Article Information
Rehabilitation, Participation, and Disability / Rehabilitation, Disability, and Participation
Research Article   |   May 2014
Interrater Reliability and Clinical Utility of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC–PART) in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2014, Vol. 68, 334-343. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.009878
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2014, Vol. 68, 334-343. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.009878
Abstract

OBJECTIVE. We examined the interrater reliability and clinical utility of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC–PART) in a rehabilitation setting.

METHOD. Ninety-six patients were recruited from the caseload of four occupational therapists. Patients were assessed on admission. Clinical utility was based on time to complete assessments.

RESULTS. Interrater reliability for the total score was very high (intraclass correlation coefficient = .91). Limits of agreement for the program indicated aggregate data from individual scores were within 1.3 units (range = −1.3 to 0.5) but individual scores would be within 10 units (range = −9.3 to 0.2). The PC–PART took 27 min to complete.

CONCLUSION. The PC–PART may have sufficient interrater reliability and clinical utility to evaluate program outcomes. The limits of agreement for rating individuals were relatively large, suggesting that it may be difficult to use the PC–PART to make clinical inferences about an individual patient.