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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lina Guo, Ulrika Söderhamn, Jacqueline McCallum, Xianfei Ding, Han Gao, Qiyun Guo, Kun Liu, Yanjin Liu
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