nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.09.2010

The internal consistency and construct validity of the partners in health scale: validation of a patient rated chronic condition self-management measure

verfasst von: John Petkov, Peter Harvey, Malcolm Battersby

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 7/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to test the internal consistency and construct validity of the revised 12-item self-rated Partners in Health (PIH) scale used to assess patients’ chronic condition self-management knowledge and behaviours.

Methods

Baseline PIH data were collected for a total of 294 patients with a range of co-morbid chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and arthritis. Scale data for the initial sample of 176 patients were analysed for internal consistency and construct validity using Reliability Analysis and Factor Analysis. Construct validity was tested in a separate sample of 118 patients using confirmatory factor analysis and a structural equation model.

Results

Good internal consistency was indicated with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.82 in the initial sample. Factor analysis for this sample revealed four key factors (knowledge, coping, management of condition and adherence to treatment) across the twelve items of the scale. These four key factors were then confirmed by applying the exploratory structural equation model to the separate sample.

Conclusion

The PIH scale exhibits construct validity and internal consistency. It therefore is both a generic self-rated clinical tool for assessing self-management in a range of chronic conditions as well as an outcome measure to compare populations and change in patient self-management knowledge and behaviour over time. The four domains of self-management provide a valid measure of patient competency in relation to the self-management of their chronic condition(s).

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Battersby, M. W., Harvey, P. W., Mills, P. D., Kalucy, E., Pols, R. G., Frith, P. A., et al. (2007). SA HealthPlus: a controlled trial of a statewide application of a generic model of chronic illness care. Milbank Quarterly, 85(1), 37–67.CrossRefPubMed

Centre for Health Advancement, KPMG Management Consulting. (1999). The Australian Coordinated Care Trials: Interim Technical National Evaluation Report. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services.

Battersby, M. W., Ask, A., Reece, M., Markwick, M., & Collins, J. (2003). The partners in health scale: The development and psychometric properties of a generic assessment scale for chronic condition self-management. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 9(2&3), 41–52.CrossRef

Battersby, M. W., FHBHRU training team. The ‘Flinders Program’ of Chronic Condition Self-Management: Information Paper. Adelaide: Flinders University, Adelaide Available from: http://som.flinders.edu.au/FUSA/CCTU/self_management.htm#sixPrinciples.

Battersby, M. W., Allen, K., Conroy, P., Fox, J., McAlindon, A., & Kalucy, L., et al. (1998). Implementing a health outcomes approach in coordinated care. The health outcomes conference: implementing the health outcomes approach. Canberra.

Francis, C., Feyer, A., & Smith, B. J. (2007). Implementing chronic disease self-management in community settings: Lessons from Australian demonstration projects. Australian Health Review, 31(4), 449–509.CrossRef

Harvey, P. W., Petkov, J., Misan, G., Warren, K., Fuller, J., Battersby, M. W., et al. (2008). Self-management support and training for patients with chronic and complex conditions improves health related behaviour and health outcomes. Australian Health Review, 32(2), 330–338.CrossRefPubMed

Harvey, P. W. (2001). The impact of coordinated care: Eyre Region, South Australia. Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH), 9(2), 70–74.CrossRef

Mills, P. D., & Harvey, P. W. (2003). Beyond community-based diabetes management and the COAG Coordinated Care Trial. Australian Journal of Rural Health 11(3).

10.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). The Australian coordinated care trials: Final Technical National Evaluation Report on the First Round of Trials, July 2001. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

11.

Battersby, M. W. (2005). Health reform through coordinated care: SA HealthPlus. BMJ 330(March 19):662–665.

12.

Ah Kit, J., Prideaux, C., Harvey, P. W., Collins, J. P., Battersby, M. W., & Mills, P. D. (2003). Chronic disease self-management in Aboriginal communities: Towards a sustainable program of care in rural communities. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 9(23), 168–176.CrossRef

13.

Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their application to test development. Educational measurement, 12(3), 38–47.

14.

Stage, C. (2003). Classical test theory or item response theory; the Swedish experience. Educational measurement 42.

15.

Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (1994). Biostatistics: the bare essentials. St Louis.

16.

Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, USA: Prentice Hall.

17.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.CrossRef

18.

Ledesma, D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: an easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 12(2).

19.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rubinstein, R. Y. (1981). Simulation and the monte carlo method. New York: Wiley.CrossRef

21.

Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In G. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment. Boston, pp 44–71.

22.

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michaels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.CrossRef

23.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.CrossRef

24.

Glasgow, R. E., Peeples, M., & Skovlund, S. E. (2008). Where is the patient in Diabetes performance measures? The case for including patient-centered and self-management measures. Diabetes Care, 31(5), 1046–1050.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The internal consistency and construct validity of the partners in health scale: validation of a patient rated chronic condition self-management measure
verfasst von: John Petkov
Peter Harvey
Malcolm Battersby
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2010
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 7/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9661-1

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2010

The relationship between change in subjective outcome and change in disease: a potential paradox

Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life among African-Americans in a lifestyle weight loss program

Structure of health-related quality of life among people with and without functional limitations

A prospective longitudinal study investigating neuroticism and mastery as predictors of quality of life among Chinese gynecologic cancer survivors

The Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS): Does it work in osteoarthritis?

Erratum to: New Australian population scoring coefficients for the old version of the SF-36 and SF-12 health status questionnaires