Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory™

Instrument Name: Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory™

Abbreviation: PEDI™

Points for Consideration:

Not recommended as potentially fit-for-purpose in a clinical trial. Recommend use as an exploratory measure rather than a primary or secondary outcome.

Description of Tool:

The PEDI is designed to assess key functional capabilities and the performance of routine childhood activities in children aged 6 months to 7.5 years. The tool can be administered as a ClinRO or ObsRO.

Minimum Qualification Required by COA Administrator: MA or BA

Year: 1992

Objective of Development:

To assess key functional capabilities (what the child can do) and performance (what the child can actually do) of routine daily childhood activities

Population of Development: Age range (therapeutic indication):

6 months to 7.5 years (All)

Pediatric Population(s) in which COA has been used:

Nervous System Diseases; Mental Disorders; Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications; Cardiovascular Diseases ; Virus Diseases; Neoplasms; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Skin and Connective Tissue Disease; Congenital, Hereditary, and Neonatal Diseases and Abnormalities; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Immune System Diseases; OtorhiNolaryngologic Diseases; Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases

COA type:

Number of Items 237 items

Mode of Administration:

Data Collection Mode:

Time for Completion: 45 to 60 minutes (depending on the method of administration and familiarity of the administrator with the child and level of functioning of the child)

Response Scales: Varies by item: Dichotomous: capable/unable 4,6 -point verbal rating scale

Summary of Scoring:

Available Scores:
Global Score (score ranges not reported)
Score by domains

Weighting:
No

Score Interpretation:
Higher score = Better functional performance

Evidence of Literature Review: Yes

Evidence of Instrument Review: Yes

Evidence of Clinical or Expert Input: Yes

Evidence of concept elicitation in target patient population: Yes

Evidence of a Saturation Grid: None identified

Evidence for Selection of Data Collection Method: Yes

Recall/Observation Period:

Evidence for Selection of Reponse Options: None identified

Evidence of cognitive interviewing of draft instrument in target patient population: None identified

Evidence of Preliminary Scoring of Items and Domains: Yes

Evidence related to respondent and administrator burden: Yes

Evidence of a Conceptual Framework: None identified

Evidence of an item-tracking matrix: None identified

Evidence related to item selection: Yes

Evidence of re-testing the final version: Yes

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): None Identified

Test-retest Reliability (ICC):

None identified

Inter-rater/ inter-interviewer reliability (kappa):

None identified

Evidence of test-retest or inter-rater reliability: None identified

Concurrent validity (convergent, divergent):

None identified

Known-group validity:

Feldman (1990)

Developmental edition (pilot version) of the PEDI

KNown-groups validity:

Measure/Groups of patients: Comparison between disabled and Non-disabled children (n= 20 each)
A priori hypotheses: The PEDI is able to discriminate between disabled and Non-disabled children
Were hypotheses confirmed: Yes
Results: Student's paired t tests
PEDI summary scale scores Functional skill level was significantly higher (183.3) in the Non-disabled group than in the disabled (160.8) group (t-test= -3.52, p=0.002)
PEDI summary scale scores Caregiver assistance was significantly higher (97.9) in the Non-disabled group than in the disabled (80.3) group (t-test= -2.93, p=0.009)
PEDI summary scale scores Modifications was significantly higher (7.7) in the disabled group than in the Non-disabled (1.4) group (t-test= 3.70, p=0.002)
PEDI self-care domain scores (Functional skill) was significantly higher (90.9) in the Non-disabled group than in the disabled (76.1) group (t-test= -3.03, p= 0.007)
PEDI self-care domain scores (Caregiver assistance) was significantly higher (37.1) in the Non-disabled group than in the disabled (28.9) group (t-test= -2.46, p= 0.02)
PEDI mobility domain scores (Functional skill) was significantly higher (49.2) in the Non-disabled group than in the disabled (43.1) group (t-test= -4.38, p= 0.0003)
PEDI mobility domain scores (Caregiver assistance) was significantly higher (40.5) in the Non-disabled group than in the disabled (31.3) group (t-test= -4.30, p= 0.0004)
Population/Disease: Disabled or Non-disabled children ; n= 40, age ranged from 2 to 8 years

Evidence of Translatability Assessment: None identified

Evidence related to missing data: None identified

Evidence for Selection of Recall Period: None identified

Evidence of Administration Instructions and Training Provided: Yes

Evidence of concurrent validity: None identified

Evidence of known-groups validity: Yes

Evidence of ability to detect change over time: None identified

Ability to detect change (Responsiveness):

None identified

Responder Thresholds:

Iyer LV (2003)
-Methods used: Smallest change in PEDI scores during inpatient rehabilitation that was considered to be a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) by physical therapists and other clinicians.
-Results: The MCIDs ranged from 6 to 15 points (X=11.5, 95% confidence interval= +/- 2.8) for all PEDI scales.
- Population/Disease: 53 children and youth (1-19 years of age) discharged from an inpatient rehabilitation hospital

Evidence of responder thresholds: Yes

Feldman AB, Haley SM, Coryell J. Concurrent and construct validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Phys Ther. 1990 Oct;70(10):602-10 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217539/)

Haley SM, Coster WJ, Faas RM. A content validity study of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Ped Phys Ther 1991;3:177-184 (https://journals.lww.com/pedpt/Abstract/1991/00340/A_Content_Validity_Study_of_the_Pediatric.2.aspx)

Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH. Paediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI): Development, standardization and administration manual. 1992; Boston, MA, New England Medical Centre Hospitals

Iyer LV, Haley SM, Watkins MP, Dumas HM. Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory for inpatient rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2003 Oct;83(10):888-98 (https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/83/10/888/2805264)

None identified

None identified

Original Language: English for the USA

Translations:
Chinese for China
Chinese for Taiwan
Danish for Denmark
Dutch for the Netherlands
French for Canada
German for Austria, Germany and Switzerland
German for Switzerland
Hebrew for Israel
Icelandic for Iceland
Italian for Italy
Luganda for Uganda
Norwegian for Norway
Portuguese for Brazil
Slovenian for Slovenia
Spanish for Puerto Rico
Spanish for the USA
Swedish for Sweden
Turkish for Turkey

Haley S , Coster W , Ludlow , Haltiwanger JT , Andrellos PJ

Pearson: research.licensing@pearson.com

*With fees for academic/Non profit research
*With fees for commercial/pharmaceutical companies
*With the signature of a contract/agreement
*Other: for further questions, please contact Pearson Clinical Assessment

Sample item available in Haley et al, 1991 (https://journals.lww.com/pedpt/Abstract/1991/00340/A_Content_Validity_Study_of_the_Pediatric.2.aspx)

None identified