Dataset Information

Subhealth Risk Perception Scale: Development and Validation of a New Measure.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To develop an individual's physical subhealth risk perception scale and evaluate its reliability and validity, so as to provide a measurement tool for individual physical health risk.

Methods

A questionnaire on the perception risk of physical subhealth was developed. Using a random sampling method, 785 people in the Anhui provincial physical examination centre were selected as the research participants. Of the questionnaires returned, 770 were valid, giving an effective rate of 98%. Firstly, the Pearson correlation coefficient method was used to study the correlation of 35 items in the initial scale, and then, polychoric factor structure analysis was carried out by using the Pratt D matrix to optimize the item structure. The Cronbach'α coefficient method was used to test the internal consistency reliability, and a structural equation model was used to explore the construct validity of the scale. The discriminant validity of the scale was obtained by factor analysis. A general linear model was used to analyse the relationship between the clinical manifestations of physical subhealth and the level of risk perception, and the convergent validity of the scale was evaluated.

Results

All the data of 35 items were significantly correlated at the 0.01 level. The correlation coefficients between a1 and a2, a3 and a4, b1 and b2, b2 and b3, c4 and c5, c5 and c6, c6 and c7, c8 and c9, d1 and d2, d2 and d3, e5 and e6, g1 and g2, g2 and g3, and g2 and g4 were greater than 0.6. The items with correlation coefficients greater than 0.6 were reduced by a Pratt D matrix. The resulting physical subhealth risk perception scale covers five factors with a total of 18 items. The Cronbach'α coefficient of the scale was 0.889, and the Cronbach'α coefficients of the five factors F1-F5 were 0.780, 0.825, 0.801, 0.736, and 0.704, respectively. Structural equation model analysis showed that χ ²/df = 3.43, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.08, GFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.84, AGFI = 0.84, and CFI = 0.88. Factor analysis showed that factors F1-F5 had significant correlations (p < 0.01), and the correlation coefficients were less than the corresponding square root value of AVE. Based on the subhealth clinical manifestations of the participants, the general linear model was used to explore the convergent validity of the scale, and the results indicated that the scale passed the convergent validity test.

Conclusions

We propose a physical subhealth risk perception scale amounting to 18 items, which includes five dimensions: health knowledge (2 items), risk perception (5 items), trust selection (4 items), information channel (4 items), and social groups (3 items). The reliability and validity of the physical subhealth risk perception scale are acceptable. Applying the scale into practice has potential to improve the overall public health level.

SUBMITTER: Sun J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8764275 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study is to establish reliability and validity of the Diabetes Burnout Scale (DBS) among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).MethodsWe used a multi-stage, mixed methods approach to developing the DBS. First, the research team identified twenty-eight candidate items through a review of the literature and 117 qualitative narratives from adults living with T1D. Next, items were revised based on the expert (n = 20) and individual with T1D (n = 10) feedback. The resulting 18-item DBS measure along with validated measures of diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and questions related to diabetes outcomes (i.e., last reported hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] and Time-in-Range [TiR]) were completed by 1099 adults with T1D across the U.S. The sample was randomly divided into two subsets (n1 = 561, n2 = 538) for exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) to determine the underlying structure of the DBS. Regression analyses examined the relationships of the DBS with self-reported glycemic control and socio-demographic characteristics.ResultsBased on the EFA three factors are identified and the DBS demonstrated strong internal consistency with Cronbach alphas (≥0.80). The validation and confirmatory analysis for the structure of the DBS provided consistent results with EFA. Higher burnout (overall DBS) was positively associated with diabetes distress (b = 0.74; p < 0.01) and depressive symptoms (b = 0.61; p < 0.01). Overall DBS, however was the strongest predictor for poorer HbA1c (r2 = 0.19; p < 0.01) and lower TiR (r2 = 0.17; p < 0.01) compared to diabetes distress and depressive symptoms.ConclusionThe 12-item DBS is a reliable and valid scale to measure diabetes burnout in adults with diabetes. The results provide a weak to strong degree of association between the validated DBS scale, T1-DDS and PHQ-8. The DBS can contribute to advancement of diabetes science by measuring diabetes burnout and informing clinical interventions to improve psychosocial care in individuals with diabetes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo design a questionnaire to evaluate and distinguish between cognitive and physical aspects of fatigue in different age groups of "nondiseased" people and guide appropriate prevention and interventions for the impact of frailty occurring in normative aging.Study design and participantsThe Norfolk QOL-Fatigue (QOL-F) with items of cognitive and physical fatigue, anxiety, and depression from validated questionnaires including items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) databank was developed. The preliminary QOL-F was administered to 409 healthy multiethnic local participants (30-80 years old) in 5 age groups.MethodsThe authors distilled the item pool using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA identified 5 latent groups as possible factors related to problems due to fatigue, subjective fatigue, reduced activities, impaired activities of daily living (ADL), and depression.ResultsCFA demonstrated good overall fit [χ2(172) = 1094.23, P < .001; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.978; root mean square error of approximation = 0.049] with factor loadings >0.617 and strong interfactor correlations (0.69-0.83), suggesting that fatigue in each domain is closely related to other domains and to the overall scale except for ADL. The 5-factor solution displayed good internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.78-0.94). Total and domain scores were fairly equivalent in all age groups except for the 40 to 49-year-old group with better overall scores. In addition, 70 to 79-year-olds had better ADL scores. In item response analysis, factor scores in different age groups were similar, so age may not be a significant driver of fatigue scores. Fatigue scores were significantly higher in females than in males (P < .05).Conclusions and clinical implicationsThe developed Norfolk QOL-F tool demonstrated fatigue as a perceived cognitive phenomenon rather than an objective physical measure, suggesting mandatory inclusion of cognitive as well as physical measures in the evaluation of people as they age. QOL-F is able to distinguish QOL-F domain scores unique to different age groups, proposing clinical benefits from physical, balance, and cognitive interventions tailored to impact frailty occurring in normative aging.

Project description:What factors determine success at University? For many years the construct of intelligence was felt to be critical. More recently, the construct of grit, has attracted the attention of many researchers, along with related concepts such as self-control, growth mind-sets and resilience. The authors of this paper have developed a specific measure of tenacity and self-composure, two constructs crucial to academic achievement. This measure comprises of 12 items drawn from the above constructs, but also including mental well-being and strengths use. In the first study, the authors report on the psychometric properties of the Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS). The new scale was administered to 1117 university students. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed two underlying factors, one labelled "tenacity" had seven items and accounted for 30% of the variance. The second was labelled "self-composure," and accounted for 14% of the variance. In the second study the BUSS was given to 340 undergraduate students along with the Grit Scale, the Self-Control Scale, the Mind-sets Quiz, the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10) and the short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS). This study presented evidence for good internal consistency reliability (.74) and test-retest reliability over three weeks was .70 for Tenacity and .77 for Self-composure. BUSS Academic Tenacity correlated highly with grit (.63), self-control (.59), resilience (.52), mind-sets (.35) and mental well-being (.54). The study also evidences good discriminative validity of the BUSS. A second study conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), explaining a total of 44% of the variance. The authors have shown good support for the reliability and validity of the BUSS scale. It now needs to be tested in other universities and in different countries. It is the contention of the authors that academic tenacity will be a better measure of academic success than other competing measures, such as grit, on their own. Further research is needed to test this assertion.