Empowerment Assessment tools in People with Disabilities in Developing Countries. A systematic literature review

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Many initiatives are undertaken to improve the empowerment of people with disabilities in developing countries. However, an overview of adequate measurement tools to evaluate such activities is not available to date. This systematic literature review aims to describe and assess the available tools to measure empowerment in people with disability, suitable for use in developing countries. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted. Articles were eligible when they described the development, validation, translation or the use of an instrument measuring empowerment in the context of disability. The instruments were assessed on their psychometric properties and on equivalence properties when they were translated. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were found in which 17 questionnaires were developed, validated, translated or used. The questionnaires varied in the construct of empowerment, the target population and the psychometric properties. None of the questionnaires were developed or validated in a developing country. The psychometric properties and equivalence criteria were not adequately described and measured in any article. The Empowerment Scale (ES) of Rogers was the most often validated, translated and used questionnaire, receiving the highest number of positive ratings for the psychometric properties. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The ES is the tool most widely used to measure empowerment, but adequate validation in a developing country context is still lacking. Cultural validity should be assessed in any culture before it is used. Further research is needed to develop empowerment instruments for developing countries and to assess the equivalence criteria, including psychometric properties of such questionnaires.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.