Dataset Information

Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire to assess occupational balance in parents of preterm infants

ABSTRACT:

Background

Parents’ meaningful activities (occupations) and occupational balance are relevant to neonatal care. Valid and reliable self-reported measurement instruments are needed to assess parents’ occupational balance and to evaluate occupational balance interventions in neonatal care. The aims of this study were to develop a self-reported questionnaire on occupational balance in informal caregivers (OBI-Care) and to examine its measurement properties including construct validity and internal consistency.

Methods and findings

A mixed method multicenter study design was employed. Items of the OBI-Care were created with parents of preterm infants based on qualitative research methods. Measurement properties were analyzed with quantitative data of parents of preterm infants. Construct validity was assessed by determining dimensionality, overall and item fit to a Rasch model, differential item functioning and threshold ordering. Internal consistency was examined by determining inter-item and item-total correlations, Cronbach’s alpha and Rasch’s person separation index. Fourteen parents participated in item creation. Measurement properties were explored in data of 304 parents. Twenty-two items, summarized in three subscales were compiled to the OBI-Care. Items showed an overall fit and except one item, an item fit to the Rasch model. There was no evidence of differential item functioning and all items displayed ordered thresholds. Each subscale had good values of person separation indices and Cronbach’s alpha.

Conclusions

The OBI-Care demonstrates construct validity and internal consistency and is thus a suitable measurement instrument to assess occupational balance of parents of preterm infants in neonatal care. OBI-Care is generic and can be applied in various health care settings.

SUBMITTER: Dur M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8592439 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSun sensitivity of the skin is a risk factor for the development of cutaneous melanoma and other skin cancers. Epidemiological studies on causal factors for the development of melanoma must control for sun sensitivity as a confounder. A standardized instrument for measuring sun sensitivity has not been established yet. It is assumed that many studies show a high potential of residual confounding for sun sensitivity. In the present study, a new questionnaire for the assessment of self-reported sun sensitivity is administered and examined.MethodsPrior to an occupational skin cancer screening program, the 745 participating employees were asked to fill in a questionnaire for self-assessment of sun sensitivity. The questionnaire was developed by experts of the working group "Round Table Sunbeds" (RTS) to limit the health hazards of sunbed use in Germany. A sun sensitivity score (RTS-score) was calculated using 10 indicators. The internal consistency of the questionnaire and the agreement with other methods (convergent validity) were examined.ResultsThe RTS-score was calculated for 655 study participants who were 18 to 65 years of age. The correlation of the items among each other was between 0.12 and 0.62. The items and the RTS-score correlated between 0.46 and 0.77. The internal consistency showed a reliability coefficient with 0.82 (Cronbach's alpha). The comparison with the Fitzpatrick classification, the prevailing standard, was possible in 617 cases with a rank correlation of rs = 0.65. The categorization of the RTS-score in four risk groups showed correct classification to the four skin types of Fitzpatrick in 75% of the cases. Other methods for the assessment of sun sensitivity displayed varying agreements with the RTS-score.ConclusionThe RTS questionnaire showed a sufficient internal consistency. There is a good convergent validity between the RTS-score and the Fritzpatrick classification avoiding shortcomings of the prevailing standard. The questionnaire represents a simple, reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of sun sensitivity. The questionnaire can be useful for epidemiological studies as well as for skin cancer prevention. Further development and standardization of sun sensitivity assessments is necessary to strengthen the evidence of epidemiological studies on causal factors of melanoma and other skin cancers.

Project description:UnlabelledTreatment of polycystic liver disease (PLD) focuses on symptom improvement. Generic questionnaires lack sensitivity to capture PLD-related symptoms, a prerequisite to determine effectiveness of therapy. We developed and validated a disease-specific questionnaire that assesses symptoms in PLD (PLD-Q). We identified 16 PLD-related symptoms (total score 0-100 points) by literature review and interviews with patients and clinicians. The developed PLD-Q was validated in Dutch (n = 200) and United States (US; n = 203) PLD patients. We assessed the correlation of PLD-Q total score with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) symptom scale, global health visual analogue scale (VAS) of EQ-5D, and liver volume. To test discriminative validity, we compared PLD-Q total scores of patients with different PLD severity stages (Gigot classification) and PLD-Q total scores of PLD patients with general controls and polycystic kidney disease patients without PLD. Reproducibility was tested by comparing original test scores with 2-week retest scores. In total, 167 Dutch and 124 US patients returned the questionnaire. Correlation between PLD-Q total score and EORTC symptom scale (The Netherlands [NL], r = 0.788; US, r = 0.811) and global health VAS (NL, r = -0.517; US, r = -0.593) was good. There was no correlation of PLD-Q total score with liver volume (NL, r = 0.138; P = 0.236; US, r = 0.254; P = 0.052). Gigot type III individuals scored numerically higher than type II patients (NL, 46 vs. 40; P = 0.089; US, 48 vs. 36; P = 0.055). PLD patients scored higher on the PLD-Q total score than general controls (NL, 42 vs. 17; US, 40 vs. 13 points) and polycystic kidney disease patients without PLD (22 points). Reproducibility of PLD-Q was excellent (NL, r = 0.94; US, 0.96).ConclusionPLD-Q is a valid, reproducible, and sensitive disease-specific questionnaire that can be used to assess PLD-related symptoms in clinical care and future research. (Hepatology 2016;64:151-160).

Project description:BACKGROUND: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity. METHODS: Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses. RESULTS: Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable inter-correlations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30-40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave. CONCLUSION: The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems.