IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0161595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construct Validity of the Dutch Version of the 12-Item Partners in Health Scale: Measuring Patient Self-Management Behaviour and Knowledge in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Anke Lenferink
  • Tanja Effing
  • Peter Harvey
  • Malcolm Battersby
  • Peter Frith
  • Wendy van Beurden
  • Job van der Palen
  • Muirne C S Paap

Abstract

Objective: The 12-item Partners in Health scale (PIH) was developed in Australia to measure self-management behaviour and knowledge in patients with chronic diseases, and has undergone several changes. Our aim was to assess the construct validity and reliability of the latest PIH version in Dutch COPD patients. Methods: The 12 items of the PIH, scored on a self-rated 9-point Likert scale, are used to calculate total and subscale scores (knowledge; coping; recognition and management of symptoms; and adherence to treatment). We used forward-backward translation of the latest version of the Australian PIH to define a Dutch PIH (PIH(Du)). Mokken Scale Analysis and common Factor Analysis were performed on data from a Dutch COPD sample to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch PIH; and to determine whether the four-subscale solution previously found for the original Australian PIH could be replicated for the Dutch PIH. Results: Two subscales were found for the Dutch PIH data (n = 118); 1) knowledge and coping; 2) recognition and management of symptoms, adherence to treatment. The correlation between the two Dutch subscales was 0.43. The lower-bound of the reliability of the total scale equalled 0.84. Factor analysis indicated that the first two factors explained a larger percentage of common variance (39.4% and 19.9%) than could be expected when using random data (17.5% and 15.1%). Conclusion: We recommend using two PIH subscale scores when assessing self-management in Dutch COPD patients. Our results did not support the four-subscale structure as previously reported for the original Australian PIH.

Suggested Citation

  • Anke Lenferink & Tanja Effing & Peter Harvey & Malcolm Battersby & Peter Frith & Wendy van Beurden & Job van der Palen & Muirne C S Paap, 2016. "Construct Validity of the Dutch Version of the 12-Item Partners in Health Scale: Measuring Patient Self-Management Behaviour and Knowledge in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161595
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161595
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161595&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0161595?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alessandro Chiarotto & Annette Bishop & Nadine E Foster & Kirsty Duncan & Ebenezer Afolabi & Raymond W Ostelo & Muirne C S Paap, 2018. "Item response theory evaluation of the biomedical scale of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161595. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.