Dataset Information

Comparing the measurement properties of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O instruments in ages 50-70: a cross-sectional study on a representative sample of the Hungarian general population.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50-70.

Methods

Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 filled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the differences between the two measures.

Results

707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r > 0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confidence (R² = 0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD = 0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD = 0.15) in most subgroups. The difference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal effect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these effects were larger than the effect of age on both measures.

Conclusion

Validity of both instruments was confirmed in the age groups 50-70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the differences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research.

SUBMITTER: Baji P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8558162 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: This study compared the psychometric properties of two self-efficacy instruments related to physical activity. Factorial validity, cross-group and longitudinal invariance, and composite reliability were examined. Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on data from a group randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of a 17-week intervention on increasing moderate to vigorous physical activity among 5th-8th grade girls (N = 1,012). Participants completed a 6-item Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale (PASE) and a 7-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise Behaviors Scale (SEEB) at baseline and post-intervention. Confirmatory factor analyses for intervention and control groups were conducted with Mplus Version 7.4 using robust weighted least squares estimation. Model fit was evaluated with the chi-square index, comparative fit index, and root mean square error of approximation. Composite reliability for latent factors with ordinal indicators was computed from Mplus output using SAS 9.3. Results: Mean age of the girls was 12.2 years (SD = 0.96). One-third of the girls were obese. Girls represented a diverse sample with over 50% indicating black race and an additional 19% identifying as mixed or other race. Both instruments demonstrated configural invariance for simultaneous analysis of cross-group and longitudinal invariance based on alternative fit indices. However, simultaneous metric invariance was not met for the PASE or the SEEB instruments. Partial metric invariance for the simultaneous analysis was achieved for the PASE with one factor loading identified as non-invariant. Partial metric invariance was not met for the SEEB. Longitudinal scalar invariance was achieved for both instruments in the control group but not the intervention group. Composite reliability for the PASE ranged from 0.772 to 0.842. Reliability for the SEEB ranged from 0.719 to 0.800 indicating higher reliability for the PASE. Reliability was more stable over time in the control group for both instruments. Conclusions: Results suggest that the intervention influenced how girls responded to indicator items. Neither of the instruments achieved simultaneous metric invariance making it difficult to assess mean differences in PA self-efficacy between groups.

Project description:BackgroundThe Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) has been the most frequently used instrument for the measurement of hopelessness in the past 40 years. Only recently has it officially been translated into German. The psychometric properties and factor structure of the BHS have been cause for intensive debate in the past.MethodsBased on a representative sample of the German population (N = 2450) item analysis including item sensitivity, item-total correlation and item difficulty was performed. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for several factor solutions from the literature were performed. Multiple group factor analysis was performed to assess measurement invariance. Construct validity was assessed via the replication of well-established correlations with concurrently assessed measures.ResultsMost items exhibited adequate properties. Items #4, #8 and #13 exhibited poor item characteristics- each of these items had previously received negative evaluations in international studies. A one-dimensional factor solution, favorable for the calculation and interpretation of a sum score, was regarded as adequate. A bi-factor model with one content factor and two method factors (defined by positive/negative item coding) resulted in an excellent model fit. Cronbach's alpha in the current sample was .87. Hopelessness, as measured by the BHS, significantly correlated in the expected direction with suicidal ideation (r = .36), depression (r = .53) and life satisfaction (r = -.53). Strict measurement invariance could be established regarding gender and depression status. Due to limited research regarding the interpretation of fit indices with dichotomous data, interpretation of CFA results needs to remain tentative.ConclusionThe BHS is a valid measure of hopelessness in various subgroups of the general population. Future research could aim at replicating these findings using item response theory and cross-cultural samples. A one-dimensional bi-factor model seems appropriate even in a non-clinical population.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.