4.3 Article

Factor structure and longitudinal invariance of the Medical Adherence Report Scale-Asthma

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY & HEALTH
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 713-727

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2010.490585

Keywords

adherence; asthma; longitudinal invariance; self-report

Funding

  1. AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY [R01HS009973, K08HS013312] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R24AG023958] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. Crohn&quot
  4. s and Colitis UK [SP2010-3] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adequate assessment of adherence to medical treatment is critical for both research purposes and clinical practice. This study examined the factor structure and longitudinal invariance of the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-A10) in a sample of asthmatic patients. We examined longitudinal data from 294 inner-city, adult participants with moderate to severe asthma. Because of ambiguous evidence regarding the dimensionality of the MARS-A10, the data was analysed with exploratory structural equation modelling. We first proceeded by determining the dimensionality of the scale at baseline and examined whether the structure, loadings, intercepts and errors were invariant over the four assessments points. Results indicated that a two-factor structure (factor 1: non-adherence based on experiential changes; factor 2: non-adherence based on intentional medication avoidance) had the best fit to the data (chi(2)(25) = 37.69, p = 0.05). Longitudinal analyses revealed that the nine items assessing intentional non-adherence were invariant over time. The evidence from the factor analysis suggests that intentional non-adherence is a multidimensional construct. Additionally, longitudinal data provided strong evidence that the items examining intentional non-adherence are invariant over time, indicating that changes in non-adherence scores can be validly attributed to changes in behaviour.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available