Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To evaluate the stages of completion and approaches to scoring the PGI for reliability, validity and responsiveness.
Participants of inpatient rehabilitation or self-management programmes completed the closed PGI with the same areas at 1 year as baseline. Test–retest reliability, validity and responsiveness were assessed for area scores (stage one), points (stage two) and methods of scoring the PGI.
One hundred and forty-five patients participated, and 118 (81 %) completed the PGI correctly. Test–retest intraclass correlations were over 0.90 for area scores (stage two) and were 0.87 and 0.86 for final PGI scores with and without the sixth “rest of life” box. Individual area scores had the highest correlations with those for instruments assessing similar constructs; those for the area “rest of life” were lower. Compared to scores based on the sum of the stage two areas, PGI scores had higher correlations of a moderate level with those for patient-reported instruments widely used within rheumatology. Correlations were of a similar level with and without the sixth “rest of life” area, and those based on baseline points at follow-up were highest. The PGI had higher SRMs than the other instruments at 1 year, the highest being for PGI scores based on baseline points.
The fully closed version of the PGI, which uses baseline areas and baseline stage three points at follow-up, is most appropriate for assessing outcomes within healthcare evaluation. The sixth “rest of life” area has poorer measurement properties, and its removal does not adversely affect the measurement properties of the PGI.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Klokkerud, M., Grotle, M., Løchting, I., Kjeken, I., Hagen, K. B., & Garratt, A. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Patient Generated Index in patients with rheumatic diseases participating in rehabilitation or self-management programs. Rheumatology (Oxford), 52(5), 924–932. CrossRef
Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2003). Patient centered assessment of ankylosing spondylitis-specific health related quality of life: Evaluation of the Patient Generated Index. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(4), 764–773. PubMed
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Garratt, A. M., Løchting, I., Smedslund, G., & Hagen, K. B. (2014). Measurement properties of instruments for assessing self-efficacy in patients with rheumatic diseases: A systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford), 53(7), 1161–1171. CrossRef
Barlow, J. H., Williams, B., & Wright, C. C. (1997). The reliability and validity of the arthritis self-efficacy scale in a UK context. Psychology Health and Medicine, 2(1), 3–17. CrossRef
Tucker, L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. CrossRef
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55. CrossRef
Løchting, I., Garratt, A. M., Klokkerud, M., & Fjernstad, E. (2012). Development of the Rheumatic Disease Illness Perception Questionnaire (RD-IPQ): Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 30(2), 308. PubMed
Loge, J. H., Kaasa, S., Hjermstad, M. J., & Kvien, T. K. (1998). Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. I. Data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1069–1176. CrossRefPubMed
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. E. (2000). How to score Version 2 of the SF-36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.
Wahl, A., Burckhardt, C., Wiklund, I., & Hanestad, B. R. (1998). The Norwegian version of the Quality of Life Scale (QOLS-N). A validation and reliability study in patients suffering from psoriasis. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 12(4), 215–222. PubMed
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(3), 613–619. CrossRef
Garratt, A. M., & Ruta, D. A. (1996). Taking a patient-centred approach to outcome measurement. In A. Hutchinson, E. McColl, M. Christie, & C. Riccalton (Eds.), Health outcome measures in primary care (pp. 77–89). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
- Evaluation of the stages of completion and scoring of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases
Andrew M. Garratt
- Springer International Publishing