Dataset Information

Online Validation of a Battery of Questionnaires for the Assessment of Family Functioning and Related Factors.

ABSTRACT: Background:Family functioning relies on different factors that are related to the individual characteristics of each member, the social context in which the family nucleus is integrated, and the internal and interpersonal family factors. The Short Version of the Family Assessment Measure-III, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, Twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support are among the most commonly employed self-report measures for the assessment of family functioning and related factors. Traditionally, these scales have been administered using paper-and-pencil versions. However, with increased access to the Internet, online administration of questionnaires has become more common. The present study aimed to validate an online version of each of the above-mentioned questionnaires in a heterogeneous sample of Italian healthy individuals. Methods:One-hundred participants were recruited for each questionnaire. A crossover design was used in each validation. The minimum important difference (MID) was applied to evaluate the differences in the variances of the paper-and-pencil and online format scores. A MID >0.5 is a reasonable first approximation of a threshold of important change. Taking into account the cross over design, mean difference between pencil-and-paper and online versions, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient were also estimated by mixed models. Results:The MID was <0.5 for all the instruments used. Therefore, no significant difference was observed between the score variances of the paper-and-pencil and online formats of all the questionnaires. Moreover, for each questionnaire the difference between the means of online and paper-and-pencil administrations scores (mean O-P) was calculated. We reported 95% confidence intervals that did not include the 0; therefore, mean (O-P) was not statistically significant. Conclusions:The current findings indicate that the online versions of all the questionnaires we administered can be considered reliable tools for the assessment of family functioning and related factors.

SUBMITTER: Lavorgna L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7199646 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Online Validation of a Battery of Questionnaires for the Assessment of Family Functioning and Related Factors.

Lavorgna Luigi L Di Tella Marialaura M Miele Giuseppina G De Mercanti Stefania Federica SF Streito Lidia Mislin LM Perutelli Virginia V Bonavita Simona S Castelli Lorys L Clerico Marinella M

Frontiers in psychology 20200428

<h4>Background</h4>Family functioning relies on different factors that are related to the individual characteristics of each member, the social context in which the family nucleus is integrated, and the internal and interpersonal family factors. The Short Version of the Family Assessment Measure-III, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, Twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support ...[more]

PMID: 32411053

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) translate subjective outcomes into objective data that can be quantified and analyzed. Nevertheless, the use of PROs in their traditional paper format is not practical for clinical practice due to limitations associated with the analysis and management of the data. To address the need for a viable way to group and utilize the main functioning assessment tools in the field of musculoskeletal disorders, the Physiotherapy Questionnaires app was developed. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to explain the development of the app, to validate it using two questionnaires, and to analyze whether participants prefer to use the app or the paper version of the questionnaires. METHODS:In the first stage, the app for an Android operational system was developed. In the second stage, the aim was to select questionnaires that were most often used in musculoskeletal clinical practice and research. The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) questionnaire were selected to validate the app. In total, 50 participants completed the paper and app versions of the AOFAS and 50 completed the FAOS. The study's outcomes were the correlation of the data between the paper and app versions as well as the preference of the participants between the two versions. RESULTS:The app was approved by experts after the adaptations of the layout for mobile phones and a total of 18 questionnaires were included in the app. Moreover, the app allows the generation of PDF and Excel files with the patients' data. In regards to validity, the mean of the total scores of the FAOS were 91.54% (SD 8.86%) for the paper version and 91.74% (SD 9.20%) for the app. There was no statistically significant differences in the means of the total scores or the subscales (P=.11-.94). The mean total scores for the AOFAS were 93.94 (SD 8.47) for the paper version and 93.96 (SD 8.48) for the app. No statistically significant differences were found for the total scores for the AOFAS or the subscales (P>.99). The app showed excellent agreement with the paper version of the FAOS, with an ICC value of 0.98 for the total score (95% CI 0.98-0.99), which was also found for the AOFAS with the ICC for the total score of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-0.99). For compliance, 72% (36/50) of the participants in the FAOS group and 94% (47/50) in the AOFAS group preferred the app version. CONCLUSIONS:The Physiotherapy Questionnaires app showed validity and high levels of compliance for the FAOS and AOFAS, which indicates it is not inferior to the paper version of these two questionnaires and confirms its viability and feasibility for use in clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the reliability and validity of two disease-specific questionnaires that assess the quality of life (QoL) among patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE); SLEQoL and LupusQoL in Malay language. This study also identified the factors affecting each domain of the questionnaires.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2021 until April 2022, and SLE patients were recruited to complete the SLEQoL, LupusQoL and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in Malay language. Disease activity were recorded using the modified SLE Disease Activity Index (M- SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 (BILAG-2004) index. Presence of organ damage was determined using the SLICC Damage index. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency while exploratory factor analysis was done to determine the construct validity. Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlation with SF-36. Multiple linear regression analysis was deployed to determine the factors affecting each domain of SLEQoL and LupusQoL.ResultsA total of 125 subjects were recruited. The Cronbach's α value for the Malay-SLEQoL (M-SLEQoL) and Malay-LupusQOL (M-LupusQoL) was 0.890 and 0.944 respectively. Exploratory factor analysis found formation of similar number of components with the original version of questionnaires and all items have good factor loading of >0.4. Both instruments also had good concurrent validity with SF-36. M-SLEQoL had good correlations with BILAG-2004 and M-SLEDAI scores. Musculoskeletal (MSK) involvement was independently associated with lower M-SLEQoL in physical function, activity and symptom domains. Meanwhile, MSK and NPSLE were associated with fatigue in M-LupusQoL.ConclusionBoth M-SLEQoL and M-LupusQoL are reliable and valid as disease -specific QoL instruments for Malaysian patients. The M-Lupus QoL has better discriminative validity compared to the M-SLEQoL. SLE patients with MSK involvement are at risk of poor QoL in multiple domains including physical function, activity, symptoms and fatigue.

Project description:BackgroundEating-related distress (ERD) is one type of psychosocial distress among advanced cancer patients and family caregivers. Its alleviation is a key issue in palliative care; however, there is no validated tool for measuring ERD.MethodsThe purpose of this study was to validate tools for evaluating ERD among patients and family caregivers. The study consisted of a development and validation/retest phase. In the development phase, we made preliminary questionnaires for patients and family caregivers. After face validity and content validity, we performed an exploratory factor analysis and discussed the final adoption of items. In the validation/retest phase, we examined factor validity with an exploratory factor analysis. We calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients between the questionnaire for patients, the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy Anorexia Cachexia Subscale (FAACT ACS) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cachexia 24 (EORTC QLQ-CAX24) and Pearson's correlation coefficients between the questionnaire for family caregivers and the Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) for concurrent validity. We calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for internal consistency and test-retest reliability. We performed the Mann-Whitney U test between the questionnaires and cancer cachexia based on criteria from the international consensus for known-group validity.ResultsIn the development phase, 162 pairs of patients and family caregivers were asked to participate, and 144 patients and 106 family caregivers responded. In the validation/retest phase, 333 pairs of patients and family caregivers were asked to participate, and 234 patients and 152 family caregivers responded. Overall, 183 patients and 112 family caregivers did the retest. Seven conceptual groups were extracted for the ERD among patients and family caregivers, respectively. Patient factors 1-7 correlated with FAACT ACS (r = -0.63, -0.43, -0.55, -0.40, -0.38, -0.54, -0.38, respectively) and EORTC QLQ-CAX24 (r = 0.58, 0.40, 0.60, 0.49, 0.38, 0.59, 0.42, respectively). Family factors 1-7 correlated with CQOLC (r = -0.34, -0.30, -0.37, -0.37, -0.46, -0.42, -0.40, respectively). The values of Cronbach's alpha and ICC of each factor and all factors of patients ranged from 0.84 to 0.96 and 0.67 to 0.83, respectively. Those of each factor and all factors of family caregivers ranged from 0.84 to 0.96 and 0.63 to 0.84, respectively. The cachexia group of patients had significantly higher scores than the non-cachexia group for each factor and all factors.ConclusionsNewly developed tools for measuring ERD experienced by advanced cancer patients and family caregivers have been validated.

Dataset Information

Online Validation of a Battery of Questionnaires for the Assessment of Family Functioning and Related Factors.

Publications

Online Validation of a Battery of Questionnaires for the Assessment of Family Functioning and Related Factors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets