4.7 Article

Psychometric Properties of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 801-806

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc10-1343

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R21-DK-080896, R01-DK-028288, R01-DK-051562]
  2. LifeScan (Milpitas, CA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-To perform the first comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II), a measure of the behavioral and affective dimensions of fear of hypoglycemia, using modern test-theory methods, including item-response theory (IRT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-Surveys completed in four previous studies by 777 adults with type 1 diabetes were aggregated for analysis, with 289 subjects completing both subscales of the HFS-II and 488 subjects completing only the Worry subscale. The aggregated sample (53.3% female, 44.4% using insulin pumps) had a mean age of 41.9 years, diabetes duration of 23.8 years, HbA(1c) value of 7.7%, and 1.4 severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past year. Data analysis included exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations and IRT. Factors were analyzed for fit, trait-level locations, point-measure correlations, and separation values. RESULTS-Internal and test-retest reliability was good, as well as convergent validity, as demonstrated by significant correlations with other measures of psychological distress. Scores were significantly higher in subjects who had experienced severe hypoglycemia in the past year. Factor analyses validated the two subscales of the HFS-II. Item analyses showed that 12 of 15 items on the Behavior subscale, and all of the items on the Worry subscale had good-fit statistics. CONCLUSIONS-The HFS-II is a reliable and valid measure of the fear of hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes, and actor analyses and IRT support the two separate subscales of the survey. Diabetes Care 34:801-806, 2011

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

4.7
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