Skip to main content
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
ZOEKEN
MENU 1 2 3 4
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2021

25-01-2021

Using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis to examine the dimensionality of The Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)

Auteurs: Sylvie Lambert, Jane McCusker, Eric Belzile, Mark Yaffe, Chidinma Ihejirika, Julie Richardson, Susan Bartlett

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The PACIC assesses key components of the Chronic Care Model. The purpose of this study is to examine the dimensionality and psychometric properties of the PACIC.

Methods

A convenience sample of 221 adults in Canada who self-identified as living with one or more physical and/or mental chronic diseases was invited to participate via an online survey link. Rasch analysis was performed, including item and person misfit, reliability, response format, targeting, unidimensionality of subscales, and differential item functioning (DIF). Also, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted and model fit of alternative factor structures proposed for the PACIC in the literature and those suggested by the Rasch analysis were explored.

Results

The patient activation, delivery system, and problem-solving subscales fit the Rasch model expectations; no modifications were required. The goal setting item 10 had a disordered threshold and was recoded. Four of the five follow-up subscale items had a disordered threshold and were recoded. All subscales were unidimensional and no local dependency was detected. DIF was only detected for some items in the follow-up subscale. The CFA revealed that none of the published factor structures fit the data; the fit statistics were appropriate when item 10 was removed and the follow-up subscale was removed.

Conclusions

Improving chronic disease care relies upon having validated measures to evaluate the extent to which care goals are met. With some modifications, four of the five PACIC subscales were found to be psychometrically robust.
vorige artikel Development of an EORTC questionnaire measuring instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) in patients with brain tumours: phase I–III
volgende artikel Development of screening questions for doctor–patient consultation assessing the quality of life and psychosocial burden of glioma patients: an explorative study
Literatuur
1.
2.
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Von Korff, M. (1996). Improving outcomes in chronic illness. Manage Care Quaterly, 4(2), 12–25.
3.
Wagner, E. H. (1998). Chronic disease management: What will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Effective Clinical Practice, 1(1), 2–4. PubMed
4.
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001). Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs, 20(6), 64–78. PubMedCrossRef
5.
Davy, C., Bleasel, J., Liu, H., Tchan, M., Ponniah, S., & Brown, A. (2015). Effectiveness of chronic care models: Opportunities for improving healthcare practice and health outcomes: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 194. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Glasgow, R. E., Wagner, E. H., Schaefer, J., Mahoney, L. D., Reid, R. J., & Greene, S. M. (2005). Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Medical Care, 43(5), 436–444. PubMedCrossRef
7.
Vrijhoef, H. J., Berbee, R., Wagner, E. H., & Steuten, L. M. (2009). Quality of integrated chronic care measured by patient survey: Identification, selection and application of most appropriate instruments. Health Expectations, 12(4), 417–429. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Maindal, H. T., Sokolowski, I., & Vedsted, P. (2012). Adaptation, data quality and confirmatory factor analysis of the Danish version of the PACIC questionnaire. European Journal of Public Health, 22(1), 31–36. PubMedCrossRef
9.
Rosemann, T., Laux, G., Droesemeyer, S., Gensichen, J., & Szecsenyi, J. (2007). Evaluation of a culturally adapted German version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC 5A) questionnaire in a sample of osteoarthritis patients. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13(5), 806–813. PubMedCrossRef
10.
Wensing, M., van Lieshout, J., Jung, H. P., Hermsen, J., & Rosemann, T. (2008). The Patients Assessment Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire in The Netherlands: A validation study in rural general practice. BMC Health Service Research, 8, 182. CrossRef
11.
Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2012). Factorial validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and PACIC short version (PACIC-S) among cardiovascular disease patients in the Netherlands. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 104. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Aung, E., Ostini, R., Dower, J., Donald, M., Coll, J. R., Williams, G. M., & Doi, S. A. (2016). Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in type 2 diabetes: A longitudinal study. Evaluation and Health Professions, 39(2), 185–203. CrossRef
13.
Gugiu, C., Coryn, C. L., & Applegate, B. (2010). Structure and measurement properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(3), 509–516. PubMed
14.
Gugiu, P. C., Coryn, C., Clark, R., & Kuehn, A. (2009). Development and evaluation of the short version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. Chronic Illness, 5(4), 268–276. PubMedCrossRef
15.
Iglesias, K., Burnand, B., & Peytremann-Bridevaux, I. (2014). PACIC Instrument: Disentangling dimensions using published validation models. International Journal for Qualily in Health Care, 26(6), 623–623. CrossRef
16.
17.
Gensichen, J., Serras, A., Paulitsch, M., Rosemann, T., König, J., Gerlach, F., & Petersen, J. (2011). The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care questionnaire: Evaluation in patients with mental disorders in primary care. Community Mental Health Journal, 47(4), 447–453. PubMedCrossRef
18.
Taggart, J., Chan, B., Jayasinghe, U. W., Christl, B., Proudfoot, J., Crookes, P., et al. (2011). Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: Structure and utility. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 215–221. PubMedCrossRef
19.
Krucien, N., Le Vaillant, M., & Pelletier-Fleury, N. (2014). Adaptation and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care in the French context. BMC Health Service Research, 14, 269. CrossRef
20.
Drewes, H. W., de Jong-van Til, J. T., Struijs, J. N., Baan, C. A., Tekle, F. B., Meijboom, B. R., & Westert, G. P. (2012). Measuring chronic care management experience of patients with diabetes: PACIC and PACIC+ validation. International Journal of Integrated Care, 12, e194. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Rick, J., Rowe, K., Hann, M., Sibbald, B., Reeves, D., Roland, M., & Bower, P. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care measure: Acceptability, reliability and validity in United Kingdom patients with long-term conditions. BMC Health Service Research, 12, 293. CrossRef
22.
Fan, J. Q., Mccoy, R. G., Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Smith, S. A., Borah, B. J., Deming, J. R., et al. (2015). Evaluating the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey from the patient’s perspective. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(1), 104–111. PubMedCrossRef
23.
Spicer, J., Budge, C., & Carryer, J. (2012). Taking the PACIC back to basics: The structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(2), 307–312. PubMedCrossRef
24.
Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 1–18. CrossRef
25.
Christensen, K. B., Engelhard, G. J., & Salzberger, T. (2012). Ask the experts: Rasch vs. Factor analysis. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 26(3), 1373.
26.
Demars, C. E. (2013). A comparison of confirmatory factor analysis and multidimensional Rasch models to investigate the dimensionality of test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Measurement, 14(2), 179–196. PubMed
27.
Wright, B. D. (1994). Comparing factor analysis and Rasch measurement. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(1), 350.
28.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis & Rheumatism-Arthritis Care & Research, 57(8), 1358–1362. CrossRef
30.
Hagquist, C., Bruce, M., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2009). Using the Rasch model in nursing research: An introduction and illustrative example. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(3), 380–393. PubMedCrossRef
31.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. CrossRef
32.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573. CrossRef
33.
Andrich, D., Lyne, A., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). RUMM2030. Perth, WA: RUMM Laboratory Pty.
34.
35.
Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2007). DIF matters: A practical approach to test if Differential Item Functioning makes a difference. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(4), 1082–1084.
36.
Kline, R. B. (2019). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guiford Press.
37.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modelling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(5), 719–751. CrossRef
38.
Trochim, W. M., & Donnely, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
39.
Boomsma, A. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirection observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part I) (pp. 149–173). Amsterdam: North Holland.
40.
Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in Lisrel Maximum-Likelihood Estimation. Psychometrika, 50(2), 229–242. CrossRef
41.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. CrossRef
42.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303–316. CrossRef
43.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
44.
Linacre, J. M. (1995). Rasch measurement transactions (1st ed.). Chicago: MESA Press.
45.
Guilleux, A., Blanchin, M., Hardouin, J. B., & Sebille, V. (2014). Power and sample size determination in the Rasch model: Evaluation of the robustness of a numerical method to non-normality of the latent trait. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e83652. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Gibbons, C. J., Small, N., Rick, J., Burt, J., Hann, M., & Bower, P. (2017). The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care produces measurements along a single dimension: Results from a Mokken analysis. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 61. PubMedCrossRef
47.
Gudergan, S. P., Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2008). Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1238–1249. CrossRef
48.
Stenner, J. A., Burdick, D. S., & Stone, M. H. (2008). Formative and reflective models: Can a Rasch analysis tell the difference? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 22(1), 1152–1153.
49.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis to examine the dimensionality of The Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)
Auteurs
Sylvie Lambert
Jane McCusker
Eric Belzile
Mark Yaffe
Chidinma Ihejirika
Julie Richardson
Susan Bartlett
Publicatiedatum
25-01-2021
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02750-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2021

Quality of Life Research 5/2021 Naar de uitgave

Commentary

Criteria for item selection for a preference-based measure for use in economic evaluation

Commentary

Using structural equation modeling to investigate change and response shift in patient-reported outcomes: practical considerations and recommendations

OriginalPaper

Gender differences in quality of life, physical activity, and risk of hypertension among sedentary occupation workers

OriginalPaper

Utility estimations of health states of older Australian women with atrial fibrillation using SF-6D

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life among Chinese primary care patients with different lower urinary tract symptoms: a latent class analysis

OriginalPaper

Response-shift effects in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a secondary analysis of clinical trial data