The context of measuring disability: does it matter whether capability or performance is measured?

Area of Science:

• Pediatric Rehabilitation
• Disability Studies
• Child Psychology

Background:

• Assessing physical disability in children requires understanding the nuances of self-reported abilities.
• Existing measurement tools may differ in how they frame questions, potentially influencing outcomes.
• The distinction between 'capability' (what one can do) and 'performance' (what one does) is crucial in disability research.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare two conceptual frameworks for physical disability questions: capability and performance.
• To investigate the relationship between capability and performance in physically disabled children.
• To evaluate the impact of environmental context on reported physical abilities.

Main Methods:

• Administered two versions of the Activities Scale for Kids (ASK) to 28 physically disabled children.
• One version assessed capability ('could do'), while the other assessed performance ('did do').
• Statistical analysis was used to compare capability and performance scores.

Main Results:

• Capability scores significantly exceeded performance scores (p < 0.001) by approximately 18%.
• The discrepancy suggests performance reflects real-life circumstances, while capability reflects abilities in defined settings.
• Environmental context appears to be a key factor influencing the reported differences.

Conclusions:

• The framing of physical disability questions significantly impacts reported outcomes.
• Researchers must carefully consider environmental contexts when choosing between measuring capability or performance.
• Both capability and performance measures may be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of children's physical abilities.