Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to identify the relation of daily prosthesis usage time (DPUT) of individuals with amputation with quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. Methods: The research was carried out on 125 individuals with amputation. Prosthetic-related parameters were searched, as well as demographic data. A generic (Nottingham Health Profile [NHP]) questionnaire and a questionnaire specific to individuals with amputation (Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales [TAPES]) QoL measurements were used. Results: Ninety-one males and 28 females with a mean age of 42.4 ± 14.7 years participated in the study. The average DPUT was 11.1 ± 4.4 hrs/d. Study results showed that there was significant correlation between both of the QoL questionnaires (NHP and TAPES) and DPUT. High correlation was determined between DPUT and NHP total score and NHP-Pain, and very high correlation was found between DPUT and NHP–Physical Activity subscale. A moderate negative correlation was found between DPUT and NHP–Energy Level, NHP–Emotional Reaction, NHP–Social Isolation, and NHP–Sleep. A moderate negative correlation was found between DPUT and TAPES–Activity Restriction. A high correlation was found between DPUT and residual limb pain, prosthetic satisfaction, time interval after amputation, and number of prosthetic fittings. A moderate correlation was found between DPUT and walking aids, whereas a poor relationship was shown between phantom pain and DPUT. Conclusions: This study showed that "the average DPUT" may be used in terms of short assessment of QoL of individuals with amputation. The outcomes of this study pointed out that especially prosthetic-related parameters affected the QoL in individuals with amputation. In problems resulting from routine assessment and questionnaires having so many items, a single-item question, "the average DPUT," may be used effectively in a shorter period and is helpful for organizing a rehabilitation program. Clinical Relevance: A single-item question, "The average daily prosthesis usage time (DPUT)," be used effectively in a shorter assessment of quality of life of individuals with amputation and is helpful for organizing a rehabilitation program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original 26‐item Self‐Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003) and 12‐item Short‐Form Self‐Compassion Scale (SF‐SCS; Raes et al., 2011) are scales commonly used in cross‐sectional and longitudinal research to assess the global self‐compassion construct and its six facets. We introduce the Single‐Item Self‐Compassion Scale (SISC; 'I have high self‐compassion') to measure the global self‐compassion construct in time‐, space‐ and resource‐limited contexts (e.g., daily diaries, experience sampling and nationally representative surveys). Additionally, the SISC will expand knowledge about self‐compassion by providing researchers whose primary interest is not self‐compassion with a convenient, face‐valid option to measure self‐compassion. Across 10 samples (four cross‐sectional, four longitudinal and two 7‐day daily diary; N = 2,477), we demonstrated that the SISC has acceptable psychometric properties. Specifically, the SISC was temporally consistent, correlated adequately with the SCS and SF‐SCS, exhibited nearly identical correlational patterns when compared with the SCS and SF‐SCS with a wide range of criterion measures (e.g., self‐esteem, personality, affective and social functioning, mental health and demographic variables) and saved 12 min over a 7‐day diary. Results replicated among students, community samples and across the United States, Turkey and Malaysia. Thus, we provide the field with an alternative measure of the global self‐compassion construct that complements the SCS and SF‐SCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to evaluate if the academic self-efficacy single-item (IUAA) has convergent validity by its relationship with the Big Five personality traits (5BF) in 450 university students (61.1% female; Mage=20.9; SDage=2.6) from a private college in Chiclayo (Peru). Besides the IUAA, we used the Big Five Inventory-15p (BFI-Sp) to assess the 5BF with 15 items (three items per factor). The research hypothesis was tested using a one-way ANOVA, with students' grouping according to their IUAA response. The results show conscientiousness as the trait with higher differences between groups, followed by openness and extraversion. Additionally, the groups do not differ substantially in agreeableness or neuroticism. Despite the limitations, the IUAA is an appropriate measure to assess academic self-efficacy in college students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessment of quality of life is of central importance in palliative care to understand patients' needs and improve their treatment. However, due to the severely compromised state of health of the severely ill or dying patients, the possibility of an adequate assessment with longer questionnaires is limited. Objective: Investigation of the criterion-oriented validity of a single item to measure quality of life in palliative care patients. Design: In a cross-sectional study, correlations of the single item with established questionnaires were analyzed. Participants/Setting: At Malteser Hospital Bonn and Bonn University Hospital, 72 palliative patients, mainly suffering from cancer, were investigated. Measurements: Clinical symptoms were measured by the Minimal Documentation System (MIDOS) and quality of life was assessed by the single item 'How satisfied are you currently with your physical and emotional well-being?' on a 7-point scale as well as by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and the Palliative Outcome Scale (POS). Results: Seventy-one of 72 patients filled in the single item and the POS, 64 patients the FACT-G. There was a high correlation between the assessment of quality of life by the single item and the FACT-G ( r = 0.695, p < 0.01) as well as the POS ( r = −0.630, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The study confirms the criterion-oriented validity of the single item to measure quality of life in palliative care patients. This can be seen as a first step to validate this economic instrument. Future studies should focus on the analysis of further psychometric aspects (e.g., reliability, sensitivity to change) of the single item. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In personality research, trait-outcome associations are often studied by correlating scale sum scores with an outcome. For example, an association between the NEO Impulsiveness scale and body mass index (BMI) is often interpreted to pertain to underlying trait Impulsiveness. We propose that this expectation can be corroborated by testing for Spearman's theorem of indifference of indicator. Namely, an underlying trait-outcome association should not depend on the specific items (i.e. indicators) used to measure the trait. To test this theorem, we outline an indicator exclusion procedure and demonstrate its viability using a simulation design. We then apply this procedure to test personality-BMI associations for indifference of indicator in a large population-based sample of adult Estonians (N = 2581) using self-ratings and informant ratings obtained with the NEO Personality Inventory-3. Our results show that the N5: Impulsiveness-BMI association mostly depends on two eating-related items, suggesting that the trait associated with BMI may be narrower than the trait the N5: Impulsiveness scale is supposed to measure. Associations between BMI, E3: Assertiveness and C2: Order seem to pertain to the trait. In sum, testing for indifference of indicator provides a potentially useful method to clarify trait-outcome relationships. R scripts are provided that implement the indicator exclusion procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Single-item assessments have been the most often-used measures in National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer control clinical trials, but normative data are not available. Our objective was to examine the normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scale for overall quality of life (QOL). Methods We analyzed baseline data from 36 clinical trials and 6 observational studies with various populations, including healthy volunteers, cancer trial patients (patients with advanced incurable cancer or patients receiving treatment with curative intent) and hospice patients as well as their caregivers. The overall QOL LASA was rated 0 (as bad as it can be) to 10 (as good as it can be). We calculated the summary statistics and the proportion of patients reporting a clinically meaningful deficit (CMD) of a score equal to 5 or less on the 0-10 scale. Results In total, for the collective sample of 9,295 individuals, the average overall QOL reported was 7.39 (SD = 2.11) with a markedly skewed distribution with roughly 17% reporting a score of 5 or below indicating a clinically significant deficit in overall QOL. Hospice patients report a much worse average score of 5.7 upon entry to hospice; hospice caregivers average 7.4. Cancer patients vary within these two extremes with most patients averaging in the 7's on the 0-10 scale (range, 0 to 10 p-value < 0.0001). Men and women's QOL distributions were virtually identical (with average of 7.6 vs. 7.5, p-value = 0.046). Overall QOL was weakly related to performance status with a Spearman correlation coefficient of -0.29 (p-value < 0.0001). Overall QOL was related to tumor response (p-value = 0.0094), i.e. patients with a full or partial response reported a CMD in 11.4% of cases compared to 14.4% among those with stable disease and 18.5% among those with disease progression. Data missingness was high for performance status and tumor response associations. Conclusions This study provides the normative data for cancer patients and healthy volunteers for overall QOL using the LASA. These can serve as benchmarks for future studies and inform clinical practice decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A single-item measure of self-rated mental health (SRMH) is being used increasingly in health research and population health surveys. The item asks respondents to rate their mental health on a five-point scale from excellent to poor. This scoping study presents the first known review of the SRMH literature. Methods: Electronic databases of Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews were searched using keywords. The databases were also searched using the titles of surveys known to include the SRMH single item. The search was supplemented by manually searching the bibliographic sections of the included studies. Two independent reviewers coded articles for inclusion or exclusion based on whether articles included SRMH. Each study was coded by theme and data were extracted about study design, sample, variables, and results. Results: Fifty-seven studies included SRMH. SRMH correlated moderately with the following mental health scales: Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, mental health subscales of the Short-Form Health Status Survey, Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale, and World Mental Health Clinical Diagnostic Interview Schedule. However, responses to this item may differ across racial and ethnic groups. Poor SRMH was associated with poor self-rated health, physical health problems, increased health service utilization and less likelihood of being satisfied with mental health services. Poor or fair SRMH was also associated with social determinants of health, such as low socioeconomic position, weak social connections and neighbourhood stressors. Synthesis of this literature provides important information about the relationships SRMH has with other variables. Conclusions: SRMH is associated with multi-item measures of mental health, self-rated health, health problems, service utilization, and service satisfaction. Given these relationships and its use in epidemiologic surveys, SRMH should continue to be assessed as a population health measure. More studies need to examine relationships between SRMH and clinical mental illnesses. Longitudinal analyses should look at whether SRMH is predictive of future mental health problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The aims of the study were to determine whether restricted single-item or multi-item testmeals are better able to detect prior changes in hunger and fullness when assessing ad libitum eating behaviour. Thirty male participants were given a low- (LE, 0.5MJ) or high-energy (HE, 4.0MJ) breakfast preload designed to induce or suppress hunger, followed 3h later by a restricted-item (RI) or multi-item (MI) testmeal. The RI testmeal comprised pasta+meat sauce, whilst the MI testmeal comprised pasta+meat sauce plus bread, chicken, ham, cheese, salad, cake and fruit. The four conditions were (i) LE/RI; (ii) LE/MI; (iii) HE/RI; (iv) HE/MI. Visual analogue scales (VAS) were used to rate appetite sensations and EI was measured at the lunch testmeal. As expected, increasing the energy content of the preload significantly altered VAS ratings and decreased EI at the testmeal. Following both LE and HE breakfasts, EI was lower at the RI (LE =4566kJ, HE =3583kJ) compared with the MI (LE =6142kJ, HE =5149kJ) testmeal. However, the compensatory decrease in EI in response to the HE breakfast was not significantly greater at the RI testmeal (RI: −983kJ, 28.1% compensation; MI: −993kJ, 28.4% compensation). In preload studies measuring EI, increasing the variety of an ad lib testmeal may not decrease the sensitivity to detect changes in hunger and fullness. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Across four studies, involving 960 participants including university students and working adults, the predictive validity of Shafer''s (Shafer, 1994) 30-bipolar-item measure of the Big Five was compared to the predictive validity of three abridged versions of Shafer''s measure: (1) a 15-bipolar-item measure; (2) a measure that clustered all of Shafer''s 60 adjectives onto five items; and (3) a five-bipolar-item measure. Criteria included respondents’ grade point average, self-reports of job satisfaction, job security, job stress, relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, trust, and provision of social support, as well other-reports of transactional and transformational leadership behaviours, organisational citizenship behaviours, and assertiveness. Results showed good predictive validity for all four Big Five measures, with only a slight decline in predictive validity as the number of items and adjectives in the Big Five measures decreased. The results support the use of the abridged measures under conditions when administration time is short, rater fatigue is likely or when multiple measures are being administered. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]