4.3 Article

Psychometric evaluation of the Diabetes Self-Management Instrument Short Form (DSMI-20)

期刊

APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 83-88

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apnr.2015.04.013

关键词

Diabetes; Self-management; Exploratory factor analysis; Psychometric evaluation

类别

资金

  1. Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital [KMUH-97-P18]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Accurately assessing the self-management of patients with diabetes requires a valid and reliable assessment instrument. The purpose of this study was to revise and simplify the original assessment instrument (DSMI-35), and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the new short form (DSMI-20) in order to enhance its practicality in clinical settings. Methods: The short form instrument (DSMI-20) was created by revising our previous longer instrument (DSMI-35) through having in-depth small group discussions and validation by experts. The draft (DSMI-20) was pilot tested, and its items were analyzed. We verified the draft (DSMI-20) by conducting an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and correlating the (DSMI-20) with the diabetes empowerment scale (DES). We tested its reliability including internal consistency and established its test-retest reliability using Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: EFA identified four factors with loadings ranging from -0.727 to -0.535 and 0.547 to 0.907: communication with HCPs, self-integration, self-monitoring of blood glucose, and problem solving. These factors accounted for 57.110% of the total variance. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the DSMI-20 total scale was 0.925 and of sub scales ranged from 0.838 to 0.892. The test-retest correlation for the DSMI-20 total scale was acceptable (r = 0.790, p < 0.001). Correlation with the DES was r = 0.552 (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The DSMI-20 is a rapid, viable assessment tool for identifying self-management problems among patients with diabetes. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据