IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i1-2p45-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale (EdFED): cross‐cultural validation of the simplified Chinese version in mainland China

Author

Listed:
  • Wen Liu
  • Roger Watson
  • Feng‐lan Lou

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To translate the Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale (EdFED) into simplified Chinese and to comprehensively evaluate its reliability and validity. Background. The EdFED, the only validated instrument at present for assessing feeding difficulty in older people with dementia, is available in the original English and traditional Chinese versions, but not available in simplified Chinese. The traditional Chinese version may not be applicable in Mainland China because of linguistic and cultural differences. Design. Survey. Methods. The scale was translated into simplified Chinese by the cross‐culture translation method, and 102 participants with dementia were assessed. Data were collected by comprehensive methods and analysed by correlation, Mokken scaling and exploratory factor analysis. Results. Reliability and validity were demonstrated for the scale, and a strong and reliable Mokken scale was formed by six items. A three‐factor structure was illustrated by exploratory factor analysis, and construct validity was further demonstrated by good convergent and discriminant validity. Conclusions. The simplified Chinese version shows good reliability and validity and can be applicable to measure feeding difficulty in people with dementia in Mainland China and other Chinese cultural groups. More work is required on Mokken scaling, and a confirmatory factor analysis is needed to confirm the three‐factor structure. Relevance to clinical practice. The validation of Ch‐EdFED has provided a validated instrument for measuring feeding difficulty in people with dementia in Chinese culture; thus, early recognition of feeding difficulty in older people with dementia can be achieved and proper interventions could be designed. Moreover, with the availability of the three different validated versions of the EdFED, research into cross‐cultural comparisons could be conducted.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen Liu & Roger Watson & Feng‐lan Lou, 2014. "The Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale (EdFED): cross‐cultural validation of the simplified Chinese version in mainland China," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1-2), pages 45-53, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:1-2:p:45-53
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04250.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04250.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04250.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2007. "Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 20(i11).
    2. Roger Watson & L Andries van der Ark & Li‐Chan Lin & Robert Fieo & Ian J Deary & Rob R Meijer, 2012. "Item response theory: How Mokken scaling can be used in clinical practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(19pt20), pages 2736-2746, October.
    3. Melissa B Aselage, 2010. "Measuring mealtime difficulties: eating, feeding and meal behaviours in older adults with dementia," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5‐6), pages 621-631, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susan D Shenkin & Roger Watson & Ken Laidlaw & John M Starr & Ian J Deary, 2014. "The Attitudes to Ageing Questionnaire: Mokken Scaling Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    3. Lucy Kok & Caroline Berden & Klarita Sadiraj, 2015. "Costs and benefits of home care for the elderly versus residential care: a comparison using propensity scores," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 119-131, March.
    4. repec:prg:jnlpep:v:preprint:id:721:p:1-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:jss:jstsof:20:i01 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jesper Tijmstra & Maria Bolsinova, 2019. "Bayes Factors for Evaluating Latent Monotonicity in Polytomous Item Response Theory Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(3), pages 846-869, September.
    7. repec:jss:jstsof:37:i02 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jan-Hinrik Meyer-Sahling & Will Lowe & Christian van Stolk, 2016. "Silent professionalization: EU integration and the professional socialization of public officials in Central and Eastern Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 162-183, March.
    9. 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.
    10. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2012. "New Developments in Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i05).
    11. de Leeuw, Jan & Mair, Patrick, 2007. "An Introduction to the Special Volume on "Psychometrics in R"," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 20(i01).
    12. Bastiaan Bruinsma, 2020. "A comparison of measures to validate scales in voting advice applications," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1299-1316, August.
    13. Sara Maestre-Andrés & Stefan Drews & Ivan Savin & Jeroen Bergh, 2021. "Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Mazanec, Josef A. & Crotts, John C. & Gursoy, Dogan & Lu, Lu, 2015. "Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions in a single nation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 299-304.
    15. Bára Elísabet Dagsdóttir & Hafrún Kristjánsdóttir & Vaka Vésteinsdóttir & Fanney Thorsdottir, 2023. "Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire: A Mokken Scale Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, August.
    16. Isabella Sulis & Mariano Porcu & Vincenza Capursi, 2019. "On the Use of Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Longitudinal Analysis Combining Measurement Issues and Implications of the Exercise," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 1305-1331, April.
    17. Dima, Alexandra L. & Stutterheim, Sarah E. & Lyimo, Ramsey & de Bruin, Marijn, 2014. "Advancing methodology in the study of HIV status disclosure: The importance of considering disclosure target and intent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 166-174.
    18. Mirko Antino & Jesús M. Alvarado & Rodrigo A. Asún & Paul Bliese, 2020. "Rethinking the Exploration of Dichotomous Data: Mokken Scale Analysis Versus Factorial Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(4), pages 839-867, November.
    19. Coromina, Lluís & Camprubí, Raquel, 2016. "Analysis of tourism information sources using a Mokken Scale perspective," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-84.
    20. Rudy Ligtvoet & L. Ark & Wicher Bergsma & Klaas Sijtsma, 2011. "Polytomous Latent Scales for the Investigation of the Ordering of Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 200-216, April.
    21. Ruth P Lopez, 2010. "Commentary on Aselage MB (2010) Measuring mealtime difficulties: eating, feeding and meal behaviour in older adults with dementia Journal of Clinical Nursing 19, 621–631," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2950-2951, October.
    22. J. Straat & L. Ark & Klaas Sijtsma, 2013. "Comparing Optimization Algorithms for Item Selection in Mokken Scale Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 30(1), pages 75-99, April.
    23. Benjamin Ambuehl & Jennifer Inauen, 2022. "Contextualized Measurement Scale Adaptation: A 4-Step Tutorial for Health Psychology Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-24, October.

    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:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:1-2:p:45-53. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.