Skip to main content
  

Rehab Measures: Community Integration Questionnaire

Link to instrument

Community Integration Questionnaire Testing Form 

Title of Assessment

Community Integration Questionnaire 

Acronym

CIQ

Instrument Reviewer(s)

Initially reviewed by the Rehabilitation Measures Team; Updated with SCI populations by Candy Tefertiller PT, DPT, ATP, NCS, Jennifer Kahn PT, DPT, NCS and the SCI EDGE task force of the Neurology section of the APTA in 2012; Updated with TBI populations by Anna de Joya, PT, DSc, NCS and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2012. Updated by Stephen Oh, OTS, Jarrett Wolske, OTS, and Lana Taylor, OTS, 2016.

Summary Date

1/18/2013 

Purpose

Used to assess the social role limitations and community interaction of people with acquired brain injury

Description

  • Two versions of the scale are available, one for interview with the patient and one used with families 
  • Can be self-administered or administered over the phone
  • If participant cannot understand the questionnaire, a proxy may read it to them, or complete for them.
  • Contains 15 items assessing community integrations across three domains: 
    • Home integration (e.g. meal preparation, Housework, child care)
    • Social integration (e.g., shopping, visiting friends, leisure activities)
    • Productive activity (e.g., full versus part-time work, school, volunteer activities)
  • Total scores can range from 0 to 29 points: 
    • Home integration (10 points)
    • Social interaction (12 points)
    • Productive activity (7 points)
  • Most items range from 0 to 2 points
  • High scores represent greater independence and community integration

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living; Life Participation 

Body Part

Not Applicable 

ICF Domain

Participation 

Domain

ADL; Motor 

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes 

Length of Test

06 to 30 Minutes 

Time to Administer

5 - 10 minutes

Number of Items

15 

Equipment Required

None necessary

Training Required

None necessary

Type of training required

No Training; Reading an Article/Manual 

Cost

Free 

Actual Cost

Free

Age Range

Adult: 18-64 years 

Administration Mode

Paper/Pencil 

Diagnosis

Acquired Brain Injury; Spinal Cord Injury; Stroke; Traumatic Brain Injury 

Populations Tested

  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Acquired Brain Injury
  • Chronic Spinal Cord Injury
  • Brain tumor
  • Stroke
  • Physical Disability: Spinal Cord Injury, Multiple Sclerosis, Limb Loss, or Muscular Dystrophy

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Not Established
 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Not Established

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Not Established

Cut-Off Scores

Not Established

Normative Data

TBI: (Zhang et al, 2002; n = 70; mean Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) = 5.8 (3.05); mean time to following commands = 32.49 (32.53) days)

Means & standard deviation across scales:
Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ)
    
Home
Social integration
Productivity
 
Total
2.81 (2.17)
7.13 (2.24)
2.01 (1.16)
11.95 (4.31)
Disability Rating Scales (DRS)
Arousability
Cognitive ability
Level of function
Employability
Total
0.13 (0.54)
0.21 (0.87)
2.5 (1.07)
2.24 (0.71)
5.09 (2.26)
Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART)
Physical ability
Motor
Social ability
Occupation
Total
82.89 (29.54)
77.17 (20.44)
75.26 (23.91)
33.46 (26.15)
268.79 (67.07

Chronic SCI: (Gontkovsky et al, 2009; n = 28; AIS (% of sample), A = 32.1, B= 32.1, C= 14.4, D = 21.4; mean age = 42 (17) years, at least one year post injury)

CIQ Normative data (limited sample size)
Scale:

Mean (SD)

Range

Home Integration
3.5 (2.6)
0–10
Social Integration
6.7 (2.5)
0–10
Productive Activity
1.0 (1.6)
0–5
Total
11.2 (5.0)
1.21

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Seale at al 2002; n=71; mean GCS for subjects less than 1 year post-injury(L1Y) =6.5 (3.7); mean GCS for subjects 1-5 years post-injury (G1Y)=5.3 (2.2); mean time from injury to admission for subjects less than 1 year post injury (L1Y)=210 days (83); mean time from injury to admission for subjects 1-5 years post-injury (G1Y)=868 days (415)

Mean and Standard deviation for L1Y and G1Y groups at admission and follow-up

Mean (SD)

L1Y

G1Y

CIQ Index

Admission

Follow-Up

Admission

Follow-Up

Total Integration

11.6 (4.2)

16.3 (5.3)

12.3 (4.3)

14.6 (5.2)

Home Integration

2.7 (2.0)

4.4 (2.4)

2.9 (2.3)

3.8 (2.6)

Social Integration

7.1 (2.3)

8.3 (2.5)

7.4 (2.4)

8.1 (2.8)

Productive Activities

1.8 (0.9)

3.6 (1.9)

2.0 (1.2)

2.7 (1.6)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Andelic et al 2016; n= 105; Mean age= 30.9(11.2); One, two, and five years post injury); CIQ total score remained stable over the first five years post-TBI.

Test-retest Reliability

Chronic Stroke with Aphasia: (Dalemans et al, 2010; n= 150; months post-onset 90.6 (80.9); age 35-87; minimum to severe aphasia present)
  •   Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96)
Traumatic Brain Injury: (Zhang et al. 2002; Willer et al. 1993, n = 16, TBI patients, mean days between assessments = 10)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.83-0.93, across 3 domains)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability (r= 0.91 total score for individuals; r = 0.97 by proxy- family members)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al 1993, n=16, mean days between assessments=10; Cusick et al 2000, n=204, time after discharge: 6 months – 5 years post-discharge; Seale et al 2002, n=71, 2 groups: admitted for treatment < 1 year post-injury and admitted for treatment between 1-5 years post-injury)

  • ICC values for individuals with TBI ranged from:
    • 0.81-0.91 = total scores (Excellent)
    • 0.71-0.93 = home integration (Adequate to Excellent)
    • 0.66-0.86 = social integration (Adequate to Excellent)
    • 0.63-0.83 = productivity activities (Adequate to Excellent)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al 1993, n=16, mean days between assessments=10)

  • ICC values for family members-proxy:
    • 0.97 = total score (Excellent)
    • 0.96 = home integration (Excellent)
    • 0.90 = social integration (Excellent)
    • 0.97 = productive activities (Excellent)

Geriatric: (Sighn & Sharma, 2015, n = 30, Mean + S.D = 72.96 mean days between assessments = 10, 22 male and 8 female with 24 being community dwellers and 6 old-age homes.)

  • Excellent: ICC Home integration found to be .9830 for single raters and .9914 for average measures.

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al 1993, n=16, mean days between assessments=10)

Correlations of ratings made by patients and family members

  • Excellent Home Integration r =.81*
  • Excellent Social Integration r =.74*
  • Excellent Productive Activities r =.96*
  • Excellent Total CIQ score r =.89*

*p<.01

Traumatic Brain Injury: (van Baalen et al, 2008; Study at discharge n=25, age range=18-50; Study at one year post-injury n=14, age range=19-51)

  • Squared Weighted Kappa Statistic between 2 raters (psychologists) for study at one year post-injury
  • Kw=0.70, 0.78 and 0.92 for social, productivity and home integration scores, respectively

Internal Consistency

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al. 1993)
  • Excellent internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha = 0.76

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Corrigan et al, 1995; premorbid/control samples: premorbid TBI n=104, premorbid other disabilities n=357; disability samples: follow-up TBI n=46, follow-up other disabilities n=171)

  • Total score, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84 (Excellent)
  • Home integration, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95 (Excellent)
  • Social integration, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.64 (Adequate)
  • Productive activities, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.26 (Poor)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al, 1994; TBI n=231 male and 110 females; mean age at time of injury=28.15 (12.71)

  • Item to total correlations = 0.32 – 0.67 (Poor to Adequate)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Corrigan et al, 1995; premorbid/control samples: premorbid TBI n=104, premorbid other disabilities n=357; disability samples: follow-up TBI n=46, follow-up other disabilities n=171 )

  • Sub-total to total correlations = 0.54, 0.74, 0.79 for productivity, social, home integration (Poor to Adequate)

Acquired Brain Injury (eg, TBI, stroke, tumor, infection, others): (Kuipers et al, 2004; n=96; proxy n=121; ABI mean age=35.6; proxy mean age=34.6)

Item Total and Item Subscale correlations for the CIQ across client and proxy ratings (Spearman’s Rho)

Patient

Proxy

Item

Subscale

Total

Subscale

Total

Home Competency

1

0.832

0.527

0.792

0.602

2

0.815

0.465

0.740

0.583

3

0.758

0.477

0.836

0.597

4

0.663

0.629

0.700

0.656

5

0.688

0.568

0.680

0.573

Sub-scale

1.000

0.729

1.000

0.810

Social Interaction

1

0.674

0.357

0.598

0.382

2

0.716

0.553

0.664

0.487

3

0.674

0.198 ns

0.683

0.361

4

0.699

0.533

0.642

0.481

5

0.586

0.514

0.555

0.465

Subscale

1.000

0.644

1.000

0.651

Productive Activities

1

0.782

0.421

0.699

0.382

2

0.466

0.232*

0.566

0.439

3

0.625

0.393

0.550

0.362

Subscale

1.000

0.541

1.000

0.620

All correlations are significant at p <0.01, except * where p <0.05 and ns where not significant.

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Andelic et al, 2016; n=105; Mean age= 30.9(11.2)) Internal consistency of CIQ scores was examined using Cronbach’s alpha

  • One year, Cronbach’s alpha= 0.81
  • Two years, Cronbach’s alpha= 0.84
  • Five years:, Cronbach’s alpha= 0.80

Geriatric Population: (Singh & Sharma, 2015) n= 30, Mean + S.D = 72.96 Cronbach’s Alpha = .799, SD = 4.987, Mean = 22.90

Physical Disability: (Hirsh et al., 2011; Spinal Cord Injury (n=146), Multiple Sclerosis (n=174), Limb Loss (n=158), or Muscular Dystrophy (n=372); Mean Age=50.86(13.48); time post Injury not reported).

  • Total score, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75 (Adequate to Good)
  • Home integration, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84 (Adequate to Good)
  • Social integration, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.51 (Poor)
  • Productive activities, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.45 (Poor)

Burn Injury: (Gerrard et al., 2015; n=492; Mean Age=41(14); 6 months post injury)

  • CIQ-15 was changed to a 13 item questionnaire with two factors: Self/Family Care and Social Integration.
  • Total score, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79 (Adequate to Good)
  • Self/Family Care (Items 1-3, 5-7), Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80 (Adequate to Good): Response options “yourself alone” and “yourself with someone else” were combined to form only one option for items 1-3. The two original options were seen as personal preferences rather than community integration limitations. Dropping item #4 (childcare) improved the CIQ’s psychometrics. Not all respondents had children. However, the item should not be removed altogether, so as to not lose potentially meaningful data from those with children.
  • Social integration (Items 7-10, 12-15), Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77 (Adequate to Good): Item 7 was put in both Self/Family Care and Social Integration factors. Item 11 on the CIQ was also taken out of this statistic because it was deemed "not clinically meaningful.” No information is given why item 11 was not clinically meaningful.

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al, 1994)

The occupation subscale of the CIQ demonstrated poor to moderate correlations with the Home integration (as rated by family members), Social Integration and productive activities (as rated by both family members and TBI patient) scales (17 and .45).

  • Demonstrate 3 subscales are measuring different components of community integration.

All three subscales (home, social, productivity) demonstrate excellent to moderate correlation to total CIQ respectively (0.82,0.80, 0.56)


Traumatic Brain Injury: (Zhang et al, 2002)

  • CIQ and CHART r=0.67
  • CIQ and DRS r=0.43
  • Chart and DRS r=0.53

Chronic SCI : (Gontkovsky et al, 2009)

Correlation coefficients between CHART-SF and CIQ scores

Home Integration

Social Integration

Productive Activity

Total

Physical Independence

0.55**

0.01

0.14

0.33

Cognitive Independence

0.57**

0.43*

0.07

0.53**

Mobility

0.52**

0.68**

0.39*

0.73**

Occupation

0.56**

0.46*

0.41*

0.64**

Social Integration

0.47*

0.77**

0.34

0.73**

Economic Self-Sufficiency

0.25

0.01

0.37

0.24

Total

0.74**

0.57**

0.42*

0.79**

*p <0.05; Adequate
** p <0.01; Excellent

  • CIQ and CHART-SF total scores positively and significantly correlated 
  • CHART-SF total score significantly correlated with all three CIQ subscales
  • CIQ total score significantly correlated with 4 of 6 CHART-SF subscales (no correlation with economic self-sufficiency and physical independence)

Chronic SCI : (Jensen et al, 2005; n = 147; (% of sample) C1-4 = 15.6, C5-8 = 34.7, T1-5 = 10.2, T6-12 = 32.0, L1-S4/5 = 7.5; mean age = 48.8 (13.0) years; measured twice 2 to 6 years between assessments; mean time since injury 16.6 (10.4) years)

The relationship between CIQ scores & Pain:

CIQ scales

With Pain

Without Pain

Significance

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

p

Social integration

6.97

2.23

7.97

1.87

0.026

Productive activity

2.19

1.72

2.10

1.79

0.804

Home competency

5.22

2.54

4.90

3.03

0.561

SF-36 MHI scale

69.54

19.17

77.73

14.26

0.030

SF-36 MHI = Mental Health scale
CIQ = Community Integration Questionnaire

**Statistically significant differences in SF-36 MHI and social integration in individuals with and without pain suggest poorer psychological functioning and social integration among individuals who report pain.

Construct Validity (Convergent/Discriminant)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Sander et al, 1999; n=312; 75% male, 25% female; TBI > 12 months post-event)

  • 3 factors identified, corresponding to home competency, social integration and productive activity accounted for 51% variance. Finance item loaded on home competency, travelling on social integration, shopping item excluded

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al, 1994; TBI n=231 male and 110 females; mean age at time of injury=28.15 (12.71)

  • Associations between sub-scales reported only weak to moderate correlation

Acquired Brain Injury (eg, TBI, stroke, tumor, infection, others): (Kuipers et al, 2004; n=96; proxy n=121; ABI mean age=35.6; proxy mean age=34.6)

  • Spearman’s rho correlations between the corresponding sub-scale scores on the CIQ and the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS) were modest but significant at the p< 0.01 level.
  • Correlations between the CIQ Home Competency and the SPRS Independent Living sub-scales were 0.42 and 0.57 for client and proxy scores, respectively.
  • Correlations between the CIQ Social Interaction and the SPRS Interpersonal Relationships sub-scales were 0.45 and 0.49 for client and proxy scores, respectively.
  • Correlations between the CIQ Productive Activity and the SPRS Occupational Activity sub-scales were 0.42 and 0.41 for client and proxy scores, respectively.
  • Total scores of the CIQ and the SPRS were correlated at 0.56 and 0.60 for client and proxy scores, respectively.
  • Stable 2-dimension solution identified (productivity vs personal life and independence vs dependence); a 3-cluster solution corresponding to the CIQ subscales could also be identified

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Zhang et al, 2002; n = 70; mean Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) = 5.8 (3.05); post-traumatic amnesia more than 7 days=57.60 (56.73) days; mean time to following commands = 32.49 (32.53) days); (Willer et al. 1993, n = 16, TBI patients, mean days between assessments = 10)

Significant correlations between:

  • CHART physical domain with CIQ home and social domains and with total CIQ ratings
  • CHART social domain correlated (r=0.38) with CIQ social domain and the total CIQ score
  • CHART motor and occupation domains correlated with each CIQ domain and with total ratings (r=0.33-0.58, P < 0.01)
  • CHART total score correlated with each domain of CIQ and total score (r=0.41-0.67, P < .01)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Sander et al, 1999; n=312; 75% male, 25% female; TBI > 12 months post-event)

  • Significant correlations of DRS and FIM + FAM items and all CIQ sub-scales (r=-0.25 – 0.57; P < .003)

Convergent Validity

Chronic Stroke with Aphasia: (Dalemans et al, 2010)

  • Poor correlation with the Dartmouth Coop Functional Health Assessment Charts (r = -0.16)
  • Adequate correlation with the Barthel Index (r = 0.41) and Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (r = 0.35)

Traumatic Brain Injury: ( Burleigh et al, 1997; n=30; mean age=37 (8.61); time post-TBI=13.70 years (4.05))

  • CIQ social integration scores were correlated with life satisfaction scores (r=0.37, p=0.047), although total scores were not (r=-0.06, p=0.77)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Heinemann et al, 1995—unable to find full text, taken from Salter et al, 2008)

  • CIQ subscores correlated with ratings of ADL’s (r=0.37, 0.37 and 0.40—home, social and productivity, respectively)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Sander et al, 1999; n=312; 75% male, 25% female; TBI > 12 months post-event)

  • Significant correlations between DRS level of function and both CIQ home (r=-0.46) and CIQ total (r=-0.47), Disability Rating Scale (DRS) employability and CIQ productivity (-0.58) and CIQ total (-0.58), Functional Assessment Measure (FAC) community access and CIQ home (r=0.46)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Zhang et al, 2002; n = 70; mean Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) = 5.8 (3.05); post-traumatic amnesia more than 7 days=57.60 (56.73) days; mean time to following commands = 32.49 (32.53) days)

  • Significant associations between CIQ and DRS total scores (-0.43), CIQ home and level of functioning, cognitive ability and employability subscales of the DRS; social integration and productivity did not correlate with any DRS subscales

Spinal Cord Injury: (Saffari et al, 2015; n= 220; Mean age= 58.18 (10.32); Time post injury (months)= 50.96 (35.05))

  • CIQ subscale scores correlated with scores from the Spinal Cord Lesions Coping Strategies Questionnaire (SCL-CSQ) (r > 0.40)

Discriminant Validity

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al, 1993, n = 446)

  • Patients with brain injury were significantly less integrated on all subscales of the CIQ than non-injured participants. However, injured and uninjured females were equally integrated into home activities. *p-values not reported

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Willer et al, 1993 and 1994)

  • Significant between-group differences on CIQ scores were reported in groups of TBI vs non-injured respondents.

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Burleigh et al, 1997 and Willer et al, 1994)

  • Significant between group differences on CIQ scores in groups of independent vs supported vs institutionalized living environment (Burleigh et al, 1997 and Willer et al, 1994).
  • A significant difference was found between the three residential groups on the home integration subscale scores (Burleigh et al, 1997)
  • Significant difference between participants living in supported apartments and a residential shared home on home integration subscale scores (Burleigh et al, 1997)
  • Participants living in supported apartment settings reported significantly more home integration than did participants living in residential or shared homes (Burleigh et al, 1997)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Winkler et al, 2006; n=40; mean age at injury=28; mean age at time of study=36.77; mean length of PTA=65.18 days (35.05))

  • Groups identified as high vs low integration via cluster analysis demonstrated significant differences on CIQ

Physical Disability: (Hirsh et al., 2011; Spinal Cord Injury (n=146), Multiple Sclerosis (n=174), Limb Loss (n=158), or Muscular Dystrophy (n=372); Mean Age=50.86(13.48); time post Injury not reported).

  • Post Hoc comparisons indicated that MS group reported better functioning on Home Integration than the SCI group. However, the difference was modest (Cohen's d=.30) and no other significant differences were found.
  • CIQ does not demonstrate measurement invariance across disability groups.

Content Validity

Traumatic Brain injury: (Willer et al, 1993)

  • Three groups of 14 rehabilitation experts created the pilot version of the CIQ. Each was then asked to focus on ones aspect of community integration (family integration, social networks and occupational integration).
  • Pilot version of the measure was tested on 49 TBI patients diagnosed with moderate to severe TBI.
  • Factor analysis resulted in 3 factors that largely mirrored those of the three groups of experts.

Face Validity

Not Established

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Sanders et al, 1999; n = 312 TBI patients > 12 post-event; retrospective study)
 
CIQ Totals and Subscale Scores:
Possible Score
Mean
SD
% min score
% max score
Total
25
14.26
5.52
.3
.3
Home Competency
10
5.23
3.20
5.8
15.1
Social Integration
10
7.17
2.44
1.3
20.8
Productivity Activity
5
1.87
1.69
39.1
1.9
 
Based on this data, the authors concluded:
  • Subscale scores are sensitive at one year post injury
  • There does not appear to be a substantial floor effect one year post injury, although the "Productivity Activity" subscale may be more susceptible to floor effects than other subscales.
  • There does not appear to be a substantial ceiling effect one year post injury, although the "social integration" subscale may be more sensitive to ceiling effects.

Traumatic Brain injury: (Gurka et al, 1999; n=88 at 6 months follow-up and n=79 at 24 month follow up; mean age=33 years (12) at 6 months follow up and mean age=39 (16) at 24 month follow up)

  • Scores are normally distributed; sensitive to a range of levels of community integration (6 and 24 months post-rehabilitation discharge)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Hall et al, 2001; n=48; mean age=37 years; mean years post injury=5 years)

  • Ceiling effects of 33%, 48% and 44% reported for productivity, social and home integration sub scales, respectively

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Corrigan and Deming, 1995; n=461 individuals with TBI (n=104)and other disabilities (eg, stroke, SCI, non-traumatic brain injury, orthopedic injury, neurologic injury, other) (n=357))

  • Normal distributions for CIQ total scores, home integration and social integration sub scales; productivity sub scale positively skewed with restricted variability in TBI samples

Responsiveness

Change Over Time:

Traumatic Brain Injury:

  • Significant change over time reported before and after rehabilitation interventions(Seale et al, 2002 and Willer et al, 1999); in pre-morbid to post-injury ratings (Corrigan and Deming, 1995)
  • Smallest detectable difference (SDD) = 6.18, SDD%=20.6 (insufficient sensitivity to change (van Baalen et al, 2006; n=25 at discharge and n=14 patients one year post injury study)

Professional Association Recommendations

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (VEDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

 

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

 

Abbreviations:

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

 

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

 

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post)

(Vestibular < 6 months post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

SCI EDGE

LS

LS

LS

 

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

TBI EDGE

NR

NR

NR

R

R

 

Recommendations based on SCI AIS Classification:

 

AIS A/B

AIS C/D

SCI EDGE

LS

LS

 

 

 

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

 

Completely Independent

Mildly dependant

Moderately Dependant

Severely Dependant

TBI EDGE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

SCI EDGE

No

No

No

Not reported

TBI EDGE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

Limitations: (Kaplan, 2001, n = 33 adults confirmed malignant brain tumors):
  • Gender Effects: Women score significantly higher on integration scores
  • Age Effects: Older subjects had lower CIQ scores overall
  • Education Effects: Increased education is related to higher CIQ total scores
  • Diversity Effects: Activities relative to cultural groups differ. The CIQ model bests fits Caucasian over African American and Hispanic groups (Lequercia et al., 2013)
  • Race/Ethnicity: (Lequerica et al., 2013; n=1756; Mean Age White=34.8 (14.5) , Black=36.1(12.9) , Hispanic=31.4(12.5); 1 year post injury) Poorer goodness to fit for the black sample and unacceptable fit for the Hispanic sample.
  • Childcare (Item #4 of CIQ): Physical Disability: (Hirsh et al., 2011; Spinal Cord Injury (n=146), Multiple Sclerosis (n=174), Limb Loss (n=158), or Muscular Dystrophy (n=372); Mean Age=50.86(13.48); time post Injury not reported). Dropping item #4 (childcare) improved the CIQ’s psychometrics. Not all respondents had children. However, the item should not be removed altogether, so as to not lose potentially meaningful data from those with children.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Bibliography

Andelic, N., et al. (2016). Modeling of community integration trajectories in the first five years after traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 33(1), 95-100. doi:10.1089/neu.2014.3844

Burleigh, S. A., Farber, R. S., et al. (1998). "Community integration and life satisfaction after traumatic brain injury: long-term findings." Am J Occup Ther 52(1): 45-52. Find it on PubMed

Cukor, J., et. al. (2015; 2014). The treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder and related psychosocial consequences of burn injury: A pilot study. Journal of Burn Care & Research : Official Publication of the American Burn Association, 36(1), 184-192.

Cusick, C. P., Gerhart, K. A., et al. (2000). "Participant-proxy reliability in traumatic brain injury outcome research." J Head Trauma Rehabil 15(1): 739-749. Find it on PubMed

Dalemans, R. J., de Witte, L. P., et al. (2010). "Psychometric properties of the community integration questionnaire adjusted for people with aphasia." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(3): 395-399. Find it on PubMed

Fraga-Maia, H. M. S., et. al., (2015). Translation, adaptation and validation of" Community Integration Questionnaire". Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 20(5), 1341-1352.

Gerrard, P., et al. (2015). Validation of the community integration questionnaire in the adult burn injury population. Quality of Life Research, 24(11), 2651-2655. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0997-4

Gontkovsky, S. T., Russum, P., et al. (2009). "Comparison of the CIQ and CHART Short Form in assessing community integration in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury: a pilot study." NeuroRehabilitation 24(2): 185-192. Find it on PubMed

Gurka, J. A., Felmingham, K. L., et al. (1999). "Utility of the functional assessment measure after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation." J Head Trauma Rehabil 14(3): 247-256. Find it on PubMed

Hall, K. M., Bushnik, T., et al. (2001). "Assessing traumatic brain injury outcome measures for long-term follow-up of community-based individuals." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82(3): 367-374. Find it on PubMed

Heinemann, A. W. and Whiteneck, G. G. (1995). "Relationships among impairment, disability, handicap and life satisfaction in persons with traumatic brain injury." The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation.

Hirsh, A. T., et. al., (2011). Psychometric properties of the community integration questionnaire in a heterogeneous sample of adults with physical disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10), 1602-1610.

Jensen, M. P., Hoffman, A. J., et al. (2005). "Chronic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury: a survey and longitudinal study." Spinal Cord 43(12): 704-712. Find it on PubMed

Kaplan, C. P. (2001). "The community integration questionnaire with new scoring guidelines: concurrent validity and need for appropriate norms." Brain Inj 15(8): 725-731. Find it on PubMed

Kuipers, P., Kendall, M., et al. (2004). "Comparison of the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS) with the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ): psychometric properties." Brain Inj 18(2): 161-177. Find it on PubMed

Lee, H., Lee, Y., Choi, H., & Pyun, S. B. (2015). Community Integration and Quality of Life in Aphasia after Stroke. Yonsei medical journal, 56(6), 1694-1702.

Lequerica, A. H., et al. (2013). The community integration questionnaire: Factor structure across racial/ethnic groups in persons with traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 28(6), E14-22.

Saffari, M., et al., (2015). Cross-cultural adaptation of the spinal cord lesion-related coping strategies questionnaire for use in iran. Injury, 46(8), 1539-1544.

Sander, A. M., Fuchs, K. L., et al. (1999). "The Community Integration Questionnaire revisited: an assessment of factor structure and validity." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80(10): 1303-1308. Find it on PubMed

Seale, G. S., Caroselli, J. S., et al. (2002). "Use of the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) to characterize changes in functioning for individuals with traumatic brain injury who participated in a post-acute rehabilitation programme." Brain Injury 16(11): 955-967.

Singh, U., & Sharma, V. (2015). Validity and reliability of community integration questionnaire in elderly. International Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (IJHRS), 4(1), 1-9.

Willer, B., Rosenthal, M., et al. (1993). "Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury." The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation 8(2): 75.

Zhang, L., Abreu, B., et al. (2002). "Comparison of the community integration questionnaire, the Craig handicap assessment and reporting technique, and the disability rating scale in traumatic brain injury." The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation 17(6): 497. Find it on PubMed

Year published

1994 

Instrument in PDF Format

Yes 
Approval Status Approved 
 
Attachments
Created at 10/30/2010 11:36 AM  by Dawood Ali 
Last modified at 7/14/2016 11:25 AM  by Jason Raad