Dataset Information

Living with Chronic Illness Scale: International validation through the classic test theory and Rasch analysis among Spanish-speaking populations with long-term conditions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Living with Chronic Illness (LW-CI) Scale is a comprehensive patient-reported outcome measure that evaluates the complex process of living with long-term conditions.

Objective

This study aimed to analyse the psychometric properties of the LW-CI scale according to the classic test theory and the Rasch model among individuals living with different long-term conditions.

Design

This was an observational, international and cross-sectional study.

Methods

A total of 2753 people from six Spanish-speaking countries living with type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, Parkinson's disease, hypertension and osteoarthritis were included. The acceptability, internal consistency and validity of the LW-CI scale were analysed using the classical test theory, and fit to the model, unidimensionality, person separation index, item local independency and differential item functioning were analysed using the Rasch model.

Results

Cronbach's α for the LW-CI scale was .91, and correlation values for all domains of the LW-CI scale ranged from .62 to .68, except for Domain 1, which showed correlation coefficients less than .30. The LW-CI domains showed a good fit to the Rasch model, with unidimensionality, item local independency and moderate reliability providing scores in a true interval scale. Except for two items, the LW-CI scale was free from bias by long-term condition type.

Discussion

After some adjustments, the LW-CI scale is a reliable and valid measure showing a good fit to the Rasch model and is ready for use in research and clinical practice. Future implementation studies are suggested.

Patient and public contribution

Patient and public involvement was conducted before this validation study - in the pilot study phase.

SUBMITTER: Rodriguez-Blazquez C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8628594 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLimited health literacy (HL) contributes to poor health outcomes and disparities, and direct measurement is often time-intensive. Self-reported HL questions have not been validated among Spanish-speaking and diverse English-speaking populations.ObjectiveTo evaluate three self-reported questions: 1 "How confident are you filling out medical forms?"; 2 "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?"; and 3 "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" Answers were based on a 5-point Likert scale.DesignThis was a validation study nested within a trial of diabetes self-management support in the San Francisco Department of Public Health.ParticipantsEnglish and Spanish-speaking adults with type 2 diabetes receiving primary care.MethodsUsing the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (s-TOFHLA) in English and Spanish as the reference, we classified HL as inadequate, marginal, or adequate. We calculated the C-index and test characteristics of the three questions and summative scale compared to the s-TOFHLA and assessed variations in performance by language, race/ethnicity, age, and education.Key resultsOf 296 participants, 48% were Spanish-speaking; 9% were White, non-Hispanic; 47% had inadequate HL and 12% had marginal HL. Overall, 57% reported being confident with forms "somewhat" or less. The "confident with forms" question performed best for detecting inadequate (C-index = 0.82, (0.77-0.87)) and inadequate plus marginal HL (C index = 0.81, (0.76-0.86); p<0.01 for differences from other questions), and performed comparably to the summative scale. The "confident with forms" question and scale also performed best across language, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and age.ConclusionsA single self-reported HL question about confidence with forms and a summative scale of three questions discriminated between Spanish and English speakers with adequate HL and those with inadequate and/or inadequate plus marginal HL. The "confident with forms" question or the summative scale may be useful for estimating HL in clinical research involving Spanish-speaking and English-speaking, chronically-ill, diverse populations.

Project description:BackgroundAppropriate dietary intake can have a significant influence on athletic performance. There is a growing consensus on sports nutrition and professionals working with athletes often provide dietary education. However, due to the limitations of existing sports nutrition knowledge questionnaires, previous reports of athletes' nutrition knowledge may be inaccurate.MethodsAn updated questionnaire has been developed based on a recent review of sports nutrition guidelines. The tool has been validated using a robust methodology that incorporates relevant techniques from classical test theory (CTT) and Item response theory (IRT), namely, Rasch analysis.ResultsThe final questionnaire has 89 questions and six sub-sections (weight management, macronutrients, micronutrients, sports nutrition, supplements, and alcohol). The content and face validity of the tool have been confirmed based on feedback from expert sports dietitians and university sports students, respectively. The internal reliability of the questionnaire as a whole is high (KR = 0.88), and most sub-sections achieved an acceptable internal reliability. Construct validity has been confirmed, with an independent T-test revealing a significant (p < 0.001) difference in knowledge scores of nutrition (64 ± 16%) and non-nutrition students (51 ± 19%). Test-retest reliability has been assured, with a strong correlation (r = 0.92, p < 0.001) between individuals' scores on two attempts of the test, 10 days to 2 weeks apart. Three of the sub-sections fit the Rasch Unidimensional Model.ConclusionsThe final version of the questionnaire represents a significant improvement over previous tools. Each nutrition sub-section is unidimensional, and therefore researchers and practitioners can use these individually, as required. Use of the questionnaire will allow researchers to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of nutrition education programs, and differences in knowledge across athletes of varying ages, genders, and athletic calibres.

Project description:BackgroundThis study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure.MethodsAdult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change.ResultsThe amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change.ConclusionApplying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

Project description:The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Pediatric Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-CLUTS) is a 12-item self-administered tool to screen lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in children. The aim of this study is to translate and validate the ICIQ-CLUTS into Spanish (ICIQ-CLUTS-Sp) and to study its psychometric properties. The cross-cultural adaptation of the ICIQ-CLUTS was performed following international recommendations. The psychometric analysis of the ICIQ-CLUTS-Sp was carried out to determine the reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy in a sample of 155 children and parents who completed the Spanish version ICIQ-CLUTS. The reliability indicators for the ICIQ-CLUTS-Sp were excellent (Cronbach's alpha was > 0.8 and ICC > 0.9 both for children's and parents' versions). There was a high Pearson r > 0.6 and a high agreement level between children's and parents' answers (ICC > 0.6), except in 4 items. For parents, the standard error of measurement (SEm) was 0.41, and the minimal detectable change (MDC) was 1.14 points. In children, these results were 0.42 and 1.16 points, respectively. Cut-off points greater than 15 points in the parent version or 16 points in the children version have the highest sensitivity and specificity for detecting LUTS. Conclusion: The Spanish version of the ICIQ-CLUTS questionnaire is a valid, reliable, and diagnostically accurate instrument to identify cases of children with LUTS. Therefore, it can be used to screen for lower urinary tract symptoms in Spanish speaking children and/or parents, as well as to monitor the effects of interventions. What is Known: • Lower urinary tract symptoms in children should be assessed multimodally using minimally invasive diagnostic procedures. One way to do this is to use the questionnaire to differentiate these cases in paediatric patients. • A cross-cultural adaptation of the ICIQ-CLUTS questionnaire to Spanish has not yet been done. What is New: • Based on a comprehensive validation methodology, this study highlights that the ICIQ-CLUTSSp questionnaire has good psychometric properties.

Project description:Effective communication with primary care physicians is important yet incompletely understood for Spanish-speaking parents. We predicted lower satisfaction among Spanish-speaking compared to English-speaking Latino and non-Latino parents.Cross-sectional analysis at 2-month well visits within the Greenlight study at 4 pediatric resident clinics. Parents reported satisfaction with 14 physician communication items using the validated Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). High satisfaction was defined as "excellent" on each CAT item. Mean estimations compared satisfaction for communication items among Spanish- and English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. We used generalized linear regression modeling, adjusted for parent age, education, income, and clinic site. Among Spanish-speaking parents, we compared visits conducted in Spanish with and without an interpreter, and in English.Compared to English-speaking Latino (n = 127) and non-Latino parents (n = 432), fewer Spanish-speaking parents (n = 303) reported satisfaction with 14 communication items. No significant differences were found between English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. Greatest differences were found in the use of a greeting that made the parent comfortable (59.4% of Spanish-speaking Latinos endorsing "excellent" vs 77.5% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01) and discussing follow-up (62.5% of Spanish-speaking Latinos vs 79.8% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01). After adjusting for parent age, education, income, and study site, Spanish-speaking Latinos were still less likely to report high satisfaction with these communication items. Satisfaction was not different among Spanish-speaking parents when the physician spoke Spanish versus used an interpreter.Satisfaction with physician communication was associated with language but not ethnicity. Spanish-speaking parents less frequently report satisfaction with communication, and innovative solutions to enhance communication quality are needed.

Project description:BackgroundWhile many populations struggle with health literacy, those who speak Spanish preferentially or exclusively, including Hispanic, immigrant, or migrant populations, may face particular barriers, as they navigate a predominantly English-language healthcare system. This population also faces greater morbidity and mortality from treatable chronic diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes. The aim of this systematic review was to describe existing health literacy interventions for patients with a Spanish-language preference and present their effectiveness.MethodsWe carried out a systematic review where Web of Science, EMBASE, and PubMed were queried using MeSH terms to identify relevant literature. Included articles described patients with a Spanish-language preference participating in interventions to improve health literacy levels in the United States. Screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in pairs. Risk of bias assessments were conducted using validated appraisal tools.ResultsA total of 2823 studies were identified, of which 62 met our eligibility criteria. The studies took place in a variety of community and clinical settings and used varied tools for measuring health literacy. Of the interventions, 28 consisted of in-person education and 27 implemented multimedia education, with 89% of studies in each category finding significant results. The remaining seven studies featured multimodal interventions, all of which achieved significant results.ConclusionSuccessful strategies included the addition of liaison roles, such as promotores (Hispanic community health workers), and the use of multimedia fotonovelas (photo comics) with linguistic and cultural adaptations. In some cases, the external validity of the results was limited. Improving low health literacy in patients with a Spanish-language preference, a population with existing barriers to high quality of care, may help them better navigate health infrastructure and make informed decisions regarding their health.RegistrationPROSPERO (available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021257655.t ).