Search

The measurement properties of instruments assessing self-efficacy (SE) in patients with rheumatic diseases were reviewed. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist was applied following systematic searches of seven electronic databases from 1989 to December 2011. Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria that included the arthritis SE scales (ASES), generalized SE scale (GSES), joint protection SE scale (JP-SES), Marcus & Resnick SE exercise behaviour (SEEB) instruments, and RA SE scale (RASE). The ASES and RASE have undergone more than one evaluation. There was little formal evaluation of content validity for the instruments. Evidence for the RASE suggests that it is not unidimensional. The JP-SES and SEEB were evaluated using modern psychometric methods. The instruments require further evaluation before application. The quality of the evidence for the ASES and RASE is generally poor. The generic focus of the GSES limits its relevance. The JP-SES and SEEB have only undergone one evaluation and that relating to the latter was narrow in scope. Future studies should address these methodological weaknesses. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective. To develop and evaluate the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQ-OHC) in Norway. Design. Questionnaire development was based on a systematic literature review of existing questionnaires, interviews with users, and expert group consultation. Questionnaire testing followed a postal survey of users who had attended out-of-hours centres in the North, West, and South of Norway. Setting. Primary care out-of-hours services. Subjects. The questionnaire was pre-tested with 13 users and was then mailed to 542 users who had had telephone contact and/or had a consultation with one of three out-of-hours centres. Main outcome measures. Data quality, internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity. Results. The questionnaire was considered to have good content validity by the expert group. There were 225 (41.51%) respondents to the postal questionnaire. Levels of missing data at the item and scale level were acceptable. Principal component analysis supported the four scales of user experiences relating to telephone contact, doctor services, nursing services, and organization. Item-total correlations were all above 0.5 and Cronbach's alpha was above 0.80 for all scales. Statistically significant associations based on explicit hypotheses were evidence for the construct validity of the PEQ-OHC. Conclusion. The development of the PEQ-OHC followed a rigorous process based on a systematic review, interviews with users, and an expert group which lend the questionnaire content validity. The PEQ-OHC has evidence for data quality, internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The data quality, reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of VEINES-QOL/Sym were assessed in 74 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). This patient-reported questionnaire produces two scale scores of venous disease-specific quality of life and venous symptoms. Items had low levels of missing data. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.41 to 0.78 with the exception of 0.29 for the symptom item ‘night cramps’. Internal consistency was supported by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 and 0.94 for VEINES-Sym and VEINES-QOL, respectively. Test–retest reliability assessed for 40 patients gave intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83 and 0.88 for VEINES-Sym and VEINES-QOL, respectively. Assessment of correlation between the two scales and other clinical measures supports the construct validity of the scales. The results indicate acceptable internal consistency, test–retest reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of the VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire in patients with DVT. The results follow those of previous studies, and support the use of VEINES-QOL/Sym in the evaluation of patient outcomes and burden of illness in clinical studies of venous thrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This article describes the development of a questionnaire designed for comparisons of patient experiences of hospital care within the Nordic countries. The results of testing for data quality, reliability, and validity are presented following a Norwegian survey. Methods: Following a literature review and consultation within an expert group six items were developed measuring patient experiences together with two items assessing global satisfaction and perception of incorrect treatment. The questions were included in a questionnaire that was mailed to 500 patients randomly selected from patients receiving inpatient treatment at a large university hospital in Norway. Principal component analysis was used to assess dimensionality. Reliability was assessed by the internal consistency and test-retest methods. Construct validity was assessed by the scale's correlation with variables known to be related to patient experiences. Results: A total of 244 (48.8%) patients responded. Levels of missing data ranged from 0.4% to 2.5%. The six items in the questionnaire that measured important aspects of patient experiences with the services contributed to a single scale with item-total correlations in the range 0.59-0.71 and a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85. The test-retest intraclass correlation was 0.88. Conclusions: The NORPEQ is a brief measure of patient experiences that covers important aspects of the healthcare encounter. It shows good evidence of reliability and validity and is relatively easy to apply alongside existing national surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To describe the development and evaluation of a parent completed questionnaire to measure parent experiences of inpatient paediatric care, the parent experiences of paediatric care (PEPC).Methods: Literature review, parent interviews, pre-testing and a national survey of 6144 parents of children who were inpatients at one of the 20 paediatric departments within Norway in 2005.Results: Three thousand three hundred and eight (53.8%) parents responded to the questionnaire. Low levels of missing data suggest that the PEPC is acceptable. The questionnaire includes six scales as supported by the results of factor analysis: nursing services (seven items), doctor services (five items), organisation (four items), information--examinations and tests (two items), information--discharge (three items) and hospital facilities (four items). Cronbach's alpha and test-retest correlations ranged from 0.7 to 0.9. Comparisons of scale scores with several variables including overall satisfaction with care and pain control, supported validity.Conclusion: The PEPC questionnaire includes important aspects of hospital care from the perspective of the parent. It has good evidence for internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity and is recommended in surveys of parent experiences of paediatric inpatient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractReliability and validity of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire was assessed in older rehabilitation patients, comparing cognitively impaired with cognitively normal subjects. The SF-36 was administered by face-to-face interview to 314 patients (58–93 years) in the day hospital and rehabilitation wards of a department of medicine for the elderly. Reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha (for internal consistency) on the main sample and intraclass correlation coefficients on a test–retest sample; correlations with functional independence measure (FIM) were examined to assess validity. In 203 cognitively normal patients (Mini-Mental State Examination ≥24), Cronbach’s alpha scores on the eight dimensions of the SF-36 ranged from 0.545 (social function) to 0.933 (bodily pain). The range for the 111 cognitively impaired patients was 0.413–0.861. Cronbach’s alpha values were significantly higher (i.e. reliability was better) in the cognitively normal group for bodily pain (P = 0.003), mental health (P = 0.03) and role emotional (P = 0.04). In test–retest studies on a further 67 patients, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.7 was attained for five out of eight dimensions in cognitively normal patients, and four out of eight dimensions in the cognitively impaired. Only the physical function dimension in the cognitively normal group attained the criterion level (r > 0.4) for construct validity when correlated with the FIM. In this group of older physically disabled patients, levels of reliability and validity previously reported for the SF-36 in younger subjects were not attained, even on face-to-face testing. Patients with coexistent cognitive impairment performed worse than those who were cognitively normal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]