Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults.
OBJECTIVES:The study aimed to test and compare the reliability and validity, including sensitivity and specificity of the two self-care-related instruments, the Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE), and the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale-Revised (ASAS-R), among older adults in the Chi...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2017-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5549914?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-4539c057014742f39ebb792eabff6d6a |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-4539c057014742f39ebb792eabff6d6a2020-11-24T20:41:27ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-01128e018279210.1371/journal.pone.0182792Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults.Lina GuoUlrika SöderhamnJacqueline McCallumXianfei DingHan GaoQiyun GuoKun LiuYanjin LiuOBJECTIVES:The study aimed to test and compare the reliability and validity, including sensitivity and specificity of the two self-care-related instruments, the Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE), and the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale-Revised (ASAS-R), among older adults in the Chinese context. METHODS:A cross-sectional design was used to conduct this study. The sample consisted of 1152 older adults. Data were collected by a questionnaire including the Chinese version of SASE (SASE-CHI), the Chinese version of ASAS-R (ASAS-R-CHI) and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency scale (ESCA). Homogeneity and stability, content, construct and concurrent validity, and sensitivity and specificity were assessed. RESULTS:The Cronbach's alpha (α) of SASE-CHI was 0.89, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.15 to r = 0.81, and the test-retest correlation coefficient (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P<0.001). The Cronbach's α of ASAS-R-CHI was 0.78, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.20 to r = 0.65, and the test-retest ICC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96; P<0.001). The content validity index (CVI) of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI was 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The findings of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) confirmed a good construct validity of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI. The Pearson's rank correlation coefficients, as a measure of concurrent validity, between total score of SASE-CHI and ESCA and ASAS-R-CHI and ESCA were assessed to 0.65 (P<0.001) and 0.62 (P<0.001), respectively. Regarding ESCA as the criterion, the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the cut-point of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.94) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80-0.86), respectively. CONCLUSION:There is no significant difference between the two instruments. Each has its own characteristics, but SASE-CHI is more suitable for older adults. The key point is that the users can choose the most appropriate scale according to the specific situation.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5549914?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Lina Guo Ulrika Söderhamn Jacqueline McCallum Xianfei Ding Han Gao Qiyun Guo Kun Liu Yanjin Liu |
spellingShingle |
Lina Guo Ulrika Söderhamn Jacqueline McCallum Xianfei Ding Han Gao Qiyun Guo Kun Liu Yanjin Liu Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Lina Guo Ulrika Söderhamn Jacqueline McCallum Xianfei Ding Han Gao Qiyun Guo Kun Liu Yanjin Liu |
author_sort |
Lina Guo |
title |
Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults. |
title_short |
Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults. |
title_full |
Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults. |
title_fullStr |
Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults. |
title_sort |
testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older chinese adults. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2017-01-01 |
description |
OBJECTIVES:The study aimed to test and compare the reliability and validity, including sensitivity and specificity of the two self-care-related instruments, the Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE), and the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale-Revised (ASAS-R), among older adults in the Chinese context. METHODS:A cross-sectional design was used to conduct this study. The sample consisted of 1152 older adults. Data were collected by a questionnaire including the Chinese version of SASE (SASE-CHI), the Chinese version of ASAS-R (ASAS-R-CHI) and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency scale (ESCA). Homogeneity and stability, content, construct and concurrent validity, and sensitivity and specificity were assessed. RESULTS:The Cronbach's alpha (α) of SASE-CHI was 0.89, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.15 to r = 0.81, and the test-retest correlation coefficient (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P<0.001). The Cronbach's α of ASAS-R-CHI was 0.78, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.20 to r = 0.65, and the test-retest ICC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96; P<0.001). The content validity index (CVI) of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI was 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The findings of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) confirmed a good construct validity of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI. The Pearson's rank correlation coefficients, as a measure of concurrent validity, between total score of SASE-CHI and ESCA and ASAS-R-CHI and ESCA were assessed to 0.65 (P<0.001) and 0.62 (P<0.001), respectively. Regarding ESCA as the criterion, the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the cut-point of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.94) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80-0.86), respectively. CONCLUSION:There is no significant difference between the two instruments. Each has its own characteristics, but SASE-CHI is more suitable for older adults. The key point is that the users can choose the most appropriate scale according to the specific situation. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5549914?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT linaguo testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults AT ulrikasoderhamn testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults AT jacquelinemccallum testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults AT xianfeiding testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults AT hangao testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults AT qiyunguo testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults AT kunliu testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults AT yanjinliu testingandcomparingtwoselfcarerelatedinstrumentsamongolderchineseadults |
_version_ |
1716825065667952640 |