Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T03:31:39.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability of the Perceive, Recall, Plan, and Perform (PRPP) assessment in community-dwelling dementia patients: test consistency and inter-rater agreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2011

Esther M. J. Steultjens ,
Sebastian Voigt-Radloff ,
Rainer Leonhart  and
Maud J. L. Graff
Esther M. J. Steultjens*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen Center for Evidence Based Practice, Department of IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Expertise Centre Neuro-Rehabilitation, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Sebastian Voigt-Radloff
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, Centre of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Freiburg, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Rainer Leonhart
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Freiburg University, Freiburg, Germany
Maud J. L. Graff
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen Center for Evidence Based Practice, Department of IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Esther M. J. Steultjens, Krakelingweg 73, 3707 HS Zeist, The Netherlands. Phone: +31-30-6977911; Fax: +31-30-6977912. Email: e.steultjens@ergologie.nl.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate aspects of inter-rater reliability of the Perceive, Recall, Plan, and Perform (PRPP) system of task analysis for assessing daily functioning of home-dwelling dementia patients.

Method: Videotaped recordings of 30 German patients with dementia performing a relevant daily task in their own homes were scored independently by ten Dutch PRPP trained occupational therapists, randomly selected from a pool of 25. Intra-class correlations (ICC) (one-way single measure) were calculated for PRPP Stage One independence score, and PRPP Stage Two information processing scale, quadrant scales, and subquadrant scales from a total of 300 PRPP scores.

Results: ICCs for Stage One PRPP independence score were good to excellent (0.63; 0.94) for both individual rater and test reliability. The Stage Two PRPP total score showed moderate correlations (0.46) for the single rater absolute agreement and excellent agreement (0.90) for test reliability. The four quadrant scale scores of the PRPP showed limited single rater absolute agreement (0.37–0.39) but excellent average test agreement (0.85–0.87). All subquadrants of information processing showed limited single rater absolute agreement (0.26–0.38) and good to excellent average test agreement (0.78–0.86). This suggests that the PRPP total is reliable in assessing information processing during activity performance in dementia patients.

Conclusions: The PRPP is a reliable measure to evaluate individual performances of routines and tasks in community-living dementia patients by multiple raters. Future research should address reliability and validity features of the PRPP for dementia patients with incorporation of criterion-referenced test characteristics.

Keywords

occupational therapydementiaassessmentactivities of daily living
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , April 2012 , pp. 659 - 665
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2011

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

Arnadóttir, G. (1990). The Brain and Behaviour: Assessing Cortical Dysfunction Through Activities of Daily Living. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Company.Google Scholar
Arnadóttir, G. and Fisher, A. G. (2008). Rasch analysis of the ADL scale of the A-ONE. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnadóttir, G., Fisher, A. G. and Löfgren, B. (2009). Dimensionality of nonmotor neurobehavioral impairments when observed in the natural contexts of ADL task performance. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 23, 579–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aubin, G., Chapparo, C., Gélinas, I., Stip, E. and Rainville, C. (2009). Task analysis for persons with schizophrenia: a preliminary study. Australia Occupational Therapy Journal, 56, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, R. et al. (2009). Scales as outcome measures for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement, 5 (4), 324–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouwens, S. (2009). Ecological aspects of cognitive assessment. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Buikema, A., van Norel, A., Tigchelaar, E. and Steultjens, E. M. J. (2009). Cliëntgerichte diagnostiek: een pilotonderzoek naar clïënten en therapeuten perspectief van AMPS, A-ONE en PRPP. [Client-centred assessment: clients and therapists perspectives of AMPS, A-ONE and PRPP: a pilot study] Wetenschappelijk Tijdschrift voor Ergotherapie, 2, 19–24.Google Scholar
Campbell, N. C. et al. (2007). Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ, 334, 455–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapparo, C. and Ranka, J. (2008). The PRPP System of Task Analysis: User's Training Manual Research Edition. Sydney: Chapparo & Ranka.Google Scholar
Doble, S. E., Fisk, J. D., MacPherson, K. M., Fisher, A. G. and Rockwood, K. (1997). Measuring functional competence in older persons with Alzheimer's disease. International Psychogeriatrics, 9, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferri, C. P. et al. (2005). Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet, 17, 366, 2112–2117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A. G. (2003). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Fort Collins, CO: Three Stars Press.Google Scholar
Froelich, L. et al. (2009). Long-term treatment of patients with Alzheimer's disease in primary and secondary care: results from an international survey. Current Medicine Research Opinion, 25, 3059–3068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gitlin, L. N., Hauck, W. W., Dennis, M. P. and Winter, L. (2005). Maintenance of effects of the home environmental skill-building program for family caregivers and individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Journal of Gerontology A: Biology Sciences & Medicine Sciences, 60, 368–374.Google ScholarPubMed
Graff, M. J., Vernooij-Dassen, M. J., Thijssen, M., Dekker, J., Hoefnagels, W. H. and Rikkert, M. G. (2006). Community-based occupational therapy for patients with dementia and their care givers: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 333, 1196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graff, M. J., Vernooij-Dassen, M. J., Thijssen, M., Dekker, J., Hoefnagels, W. H. and Olderikkert, M. G. (2007). Effects of community occupational therapy on quality of life, mood, and health status in dementia patients and their caregivers: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Gerontology A: Biology Sciences & Medicine Sciences, 62, 1002–1009.Google ScholarPubMed
Katona, C., Livingston, G., Cooper, C., Ames, D., Brodaty, H. and Chiu, E. (2007). International Psychogeriatric Association consensus statement on defining and measuring treatment benefits in dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 19, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, K. P. et al. (2007). Activities of daily living performance in dementia. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 116, 91–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittelman, M. S., Haley, W. E., Clay, O. J. and Roth, D. L. (2006). Improving caregiver well-being delays nursing home placement of patients with Alzheimer disease. Neurology, 67, 1592–1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nott, M. T., Chapparo, C. and Heard, R. (2009). Reliability of the PRPP system of task analysis: a criterion referenced assessment. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 56, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygård, L., Bernspång, B., Fisher, A. G. and Winblad, B. (1994). Comparing motor and process ability of persons with suspected dementia in home and clinic settings. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 689–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, D. W., Ames, D., Gardner, B. and King, M. (2009). Psychosocial treatments of psychological symptoms in dementia: a systematic review of reports meeting quality standards. International Psychogeriatrics, 21, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smits, C. H., de Lange, J., Dröes, R. M., Meiland, F., Vernooij-Dassen, M. and Pot, A. M. (2007). Effects of combined intervention programmes for people with dementia living at home and their caregivers: a systematic review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 1181–1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teunisse, S. and Derix, M. M. (1997). The interview for deterioration in daily living activities in dementia: agreement between primary and secondary caregivers. International Psychogeriatrics, 9 (Suppl. 1), 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernooij-Dassen, M., Vasse, E., Zuidema, S., Cohen-Mansfield, J. and Moyle, W. (2010). Psychosocial interventions for dementia patients in long-term care. International Psychogeriatrics, 22, 1121–1128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voigt-Radloff, S. et al. (2009). WHEDA study: effectiveness of occupational therapy at home for older people with dementia and their caregivers – the design of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating a Dutch programme in seven German centres. BMC Geriatrics, 9, 44–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walter, S. D., Eliasziw, M. and Donner, A. (1998). Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 101–110.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed