- Self-administered questionnaire developed using the ICF model of human functioning and disability.
- Developed using input from experienced clinicians and individuals attending an out-patient rehabilitation unit (e.g. stroke, SCI, rheumatoid arthritis, and neuromuscular conditions).
- Assesses autonomy and participation as perceived by the individual.
- Measures two different aspects of participation: perceived participation and the experience of problems for each aspect of participation.
- The participation domains include:
1) autonomy outdoors (e.g. visiting friends, leisure time)
2) autonomy indoors (e.g. self-care)
3) family role (e.g. housework)
4) social relations
5) paid work and education.
Items should be acceptable and relevant to individuals with SCI as the IPAQ was developed using input from experienced clinicians and individuals attending an out-patient rehabilitation unit.
- Completed by self-report or by an interviewer.
- The perceived participation scale consists of 31 items which are assessed using a 5 point rating scale (1 = very good and 5 = very poor) and the problem scale contains 8 items which are assessed using a 3 point rating scale (0 = no problem and 2 = severe problem).
- Administration requires approximately 20 minutes.
Number of Items
A participation score (range: 30-155) and a problem score (0-16) are produced by summing items in each scale.
Does not require advanced training
Can be found here.
The above file contains the IPAQ rating system and scale items in the format of a ready-to-use worksheet for data collection.
# of studies reporting psychometric properties: 6
- Higher scores in participation domain = lower participation
- Higher scores in problem experience domain = more problem
- No normative data has been established for the SCI population.
- Published data is available to compare results for individuals with SCI (see interpretability section of Research Summary sheet).
MCID: not established in SCI
Autonomy Indoors: 0.25
Family Role: 0.30
Autonomy Outdoors: 0.42
Social life and relationships: 0.28
Work and Education: 0.35
(Noonan et al. 2010a)
Autonomy Indoors: 0.70
Family Role: 0.83
Autonomy Outdoors: 1.18
Social life and relationships: 0.76
Work and Education: 0.96
(Noonan et al. 2010a)
- Internal consistency is High for all the IPAQ subscales:
- Social relationships (Cronbach’s a = 0.86-0.90)
- Autonomy Indoors (Cronbach’s a = 0.84-0.94)
- Family Role (Cronbach’s a = 0.84-0.95)
- Autonomy outdoors (Cronbach’s a = 0.81-0.95)
- Work and Education (Cronbach’s a = 0.86-0.96).
- Test-retest reliability is High for all IPAQ subscales:
- Social relationships (ICC = 0.83-0.94)
- Autonomy Indoors (ICC = 0.87-0.95)
- Family Role (ICC = 0.83-0.97)
- Autonomy outdoors (ICC = 0.91-0.97)
- Work and Education (ICC = 0.91).
(Cardol et al. 1999, Cardol et al. 2001, Sibley et al. 2006)
Correlations between IPAQ subscales (Autonomy indoors, Family role and Autonomy outdoors) and the Short Form -36 Physical Domain are Moderate (Pearson’s r = -0.43 to -0.51).
(Cardol et al. 1999, Cardol et al. 2001, Sibley et al. 2006, Lund et al. 2005, Lund et al. 2007)
The Standard Response Mean (SRM) of the IPAQ Participation Domains are as follows:
- Autonomy Indoors (0.4)
- Family Role (0.8)
- Autonomy Outdoors (1.2)
- Social Relations (0.1)
- Work and Education (1.3).
(Cardol et al. 2002)
There are significant ceiling effects (>20% have best possible score) in all the IPAQ subscales.
(Lund et al. 2007)
Dr. Ben Mortenson, Jeff Tan/Brodie Sakakibara, John Zhu, Jeremy Mak, Kyle Diab
Date Last Updated
22 August 2020
Cardol M, Beelen A, van den Bos GA, de Jong BA, de Groot IJ, de Haan RJ. Responsiveness of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83:1524-1529.
Cardol M, de Haan RJ, van den Bos GA, de Jong BA, de Groot IJ. The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA). Clin Rehabil 1999;13:411-419.
Cardol M, de Haan RJ, de Jong BA, van den Bos GA, de Groot IJ. Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82:210-216.
Cardol M, de Jong BA, van den Bos GA, Beelem A, de Groot IJ, de Haan RJ. Beyond disability: perceived participation in people with a chronic disabling condition. Clin Rehabil 2002;16:27-35.
Lund ML, Nordlund A, Nygard L, Lexell J, Bernspang B. Perceptions of participation and predictors of perceived problems with participation in persons with spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Med, 2005; 37(1): 3-8.
Lund ML, Nordlund A, Bernspang B, Lexell J. Perceived participation and problems in participation are determinants in life satisfaction in people with spinal cord injury. Disability & Rehabilitation, 2007; 29(18): 1417-22.
Noonan VK, Kopec JA, Noreau L, Singer J, Masse LC, Dvorak MF. Comparing the reliability of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. J Rehabil Med, 2010; 42: 735-43.
Noonan VK, Kopec JA, Noreau L, Singer J, Masse LC, Dvorak MF. Comparing the validity of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. J Rehabil Med, 2010; 42: 724-34.
Sibley A, Kersten P, Ward CD, White B, Mehta R, George S. Measuring autonomy in disabled people: validation of a new scale in a UK population. Clin Rehabil, 2006; 20:793-803.
Suttiwong J, Vongsirinavarat M, Vachalathiti R, Chaiyawat P. Impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: psychometric properties of the thai version. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(7):769-74.