Top

Gepubliceerd in:

09-01-2024

Measurement equivalence of the English and French versions of the self-efficacy to manage chronic disease scale: a Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) study

Auteurs: Alyssa K. Choi, Chelsea S. Rapoport, Linda Kwakkenbos, Marie-Eve Carrier, Karen Gottesman, Scott C. Roesch, Daphna Harel, Brett D. Thombs, Vanessa L. Malcarne, the SPIN Investigators

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2024

Abstract

Purpose

The Self-Efficacy to Manage Chronic Disease (SEMCD) scale is widely used, including in systemic sclerosis (SSc). The SEMCD has been validated in SSc, but the metric equivalence of the English and French versions has not been assessed (i.e., whether psychometric properties are equivalent across English and French).

Methods

Participants were adults from the Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort (N = 2159) who completed baseline measures in English (n = 1473) or French (n = 686) between May 2014 to July 2020. Analyses assessed internal consistency reliability via Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega, convergent validity via Pearson’s correlations, structural validity via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and differential item functioning via the Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) model.

Results

Internal consistency reliability was high in English (α = .93, ω = .93) and French (α = .92, ω = .93). All correlations between the SEMCD and measures of health outcomes were moderate to large, statistically significant, and in the hypothesized direction in both languages. The CFA demonstrated that the one-factor model of self-efficacy, overall, fit reasonably well (CFI = .96, TLI = .93, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .14). Standardized factor loadings were large (.76 to .88). Three items displayed statistically significant uniform DIF and all six displayed nonuniform DIF; all DIF was of minimal magnitude. Comparison of unadjusted and DIF-adjusted models indicated that DIF did not meaningfully impact total score (ICC = 0.999, r = 0.999).

Conclusion

Scores from English- and French-speaking adults with SSc can be combined for analysis or compared.

vorige artikel Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument

volgende artikel Unsupervised item response theory models for assessing sample heterogeneity in patient-reported outcomes measures

Lorig, K., Sobel, D. S., Ritter, P. L., Laurent, D., & Hobbs, M. (2001). Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(6), 256–262.PubMed

Haas, B. K. (2000). Focus on health promotion: Self-efficacy in oncology nursing research and practice. Oncology Nursing Forum, 27(1), 89–97.PubMed

Martinez-Calderon, J., Meeus, M., Struyf, F., & Luque-Suarez, A. (2020). The role of self-efficacy in pain intensity, function, psychological factors, health behaviors, and quality of life in people with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 36(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2018.1482512CrossRefPubMed

Ritter, P. L., & Lorig, K. (2014). The English and Spanish Self-Efficacy to Manage Chronic Disease Scale measures were validated using multiple studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(11), 1265–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.009CrossRefPubMed

Riehm, K. E., et al. (2016). Validation of the self-efficacy for managing chronic disease scale: A scleroderma patient-centered Intervention Network cohort study. Arthritis Care and Research, 68(8), 1195–1200. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22807CrossRefPubMed

Hudson, M., et al. (2009). Health-related quality of life in systemic sclerosis: A systematic review. Arthritis Care and Research, 61(8), 1112–1120. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24676CrossRefPubMed

Allanore, Y., et al. (2015). Systemic sclerosis. Nature Review Disease Primers, 1(1), 15002. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2015.2CrossRefPubMed

Nordlund, J., et al. (2021). The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program: Protocol for a two-arm parallel partially nested randomized controlled feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial. Trials, 22(1), 856. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05827-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dougherty, D. H., et al. (2018). The Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Cohort: Baseline clinical features and comparison with other large scleroderma cohorts. Rheumatology, 57(9), 1623–1631. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/key139CrossRefPubMed

10.

van den Hoogen, F., et al. (2013). 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: An American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 65, 2737–2747. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204424CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

PROMIS Health Organization and PROMIS Cooperative Group, “PROMIS® Instrument Development and Validation: Scientific Standards Version 2.0 (revised May 2013),” 2013. https://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/PROMISStandards_Vers2.0_Final.pdf

12.

Hinchcliff, M., et al. (2011). Validity of two new patient reported outcome measures in systemic sclerosis: The PROMIS-29 profile and the FACIT-dyspnea. Arthritis Care and Research, 63(11), 1620–1628. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20591CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kroenke, K., Strine, T. W., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Berry, J. T., & Mokdad, A. H. (2009). The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 114(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026CrossRefPubMed

14.

Milette, K., Hudson, M., Baron, M., Thombs, B. D., Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. (2010). Comparison of the PHQ-9 and CES-D depression scales in systemic sclerosis: Internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and clinical correlates. Rheumatology, 49(4), 789–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kep443CrossRefPubMed

15.

Poole, J. L., & Steen, V. D. (1991). The use of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) to determine physical disability in systemic sclerosis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 4(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1790040106CrossRef

16.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587CrossRef

17.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRef

18.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5MathSciNetCrossRef

19.

Woods, C. M., & Grimm, K. J. (2011). Testing for nonuniform differential item functioning with multiple indicator multiple cause models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(5), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621611405984CrossRef

20.

Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Measurement equivalence of the English and French versions of the self-efficacy to manage chronic disease scale: a Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) study
Auteurs: Alyssa K. Choi
Chelsea S. Rapoport
Linda Kwakkenbos
Marie-Eve Carrier
Karen Gottesman
Scott C. Roesch
Daphna Harel
Brett D. Thombs
Vanessa L. Malcarne
the SPIN Investigators
Publicatiedatum: 09-01-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03571-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2024

Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system

Sexual quality of life after gynaecological cancer: what young women want

The impact of endoscopic treatment on health-related quality of life in patients with Barrett’s neoplasia: a scoping review

Response shift in coronary artery disease

QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment

Differences in health-related quality of life between native and foreign-born gynaecological cancer patients in Sweden: a five-year cross-sectional study