Construct Validity of the Dutch Version of the 12-Item Partners in Health Scale: Measuring Patient Self-Management Behaviour and Knowledge in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Abstract

ObjectiveThe 12-item Partners in Health scale (PIH) was developed in Australia to measure self-management behaviour and knowledge in patients with chronic diseases, and has undergone several changes. Our aim was to assess the construct validity and reliability of the latest PIH version in Dutch COPD patients.MethodsThe 12 items of the PIH, scored on a self-rated 9-point Likert scale, are used to calculate total and subscale scores (knowledge; coping; recognition and management of symptoms; and adherence to treatment). We used forward-backward translation of the latest version of the Australian PIH to define a Dutch PIH (PIH(Du)). Mokken Scale Analysis and common Factor Analysis were performed on data from a Dutch COPD sample to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch PIH; and to determine whether the four-subscale solution previously found for the original Australian PIH could be replicated for the Dutch PIH.ResultsTwo subscales were found for the Dutch PIH data (n = 118); 1) knowledge and coping; 2) recognition and management of symptoms, adherence to treatment. The correlation between the two Dutch subscales was 0.43. The lower-bound of the reliability of the total scale equalled 0.84. Factor analysis indicated that the first two factors explained a larger percentage of common variance (39.4% and 19.9%) than could be expected when using random data (17.5% and 15.1%).ConclusionWe recommend using two PIH subscale scores when assessing self-management in Dutch COPD patients. Our results did not support the four-subscale structure as previously reported for the original Australian PIH.

Psychometric Properties of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory: Replication and Extension across Clinical and Non-Clinical Samples

“…When poor fit was found for CFA models, the confirmatory analyses were followed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for each subsample and the full sample. Following Lenferink et al (2016), EFA was conducted applying a Parallel Analysis (PA) based on Minimum Rank Factor Analysis (MRFA) using the software package FACTOR (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006). In this method, for each factor the empirical value of the proportion of explained common variance (ECV) is compared to corresponding factors ECV derived from random data assuming independence among items.…”

Predictors for self‐management in older adults with type 2 diabetic nephropathy

“…A higher score indicates better self-management performance. The PIH scale has good reliability and structural validity, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.82 to 0.88 and is currently used with older adults (Veldman et al, 2017) and patients with multiple chronic diseases, including hypertensive cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and arthritis (Battersby et al, 2003;Leniferink et al, 2016;Petkov, Harvey, & Battersby, 2010;Smith, Harvey, Lawn, Harris, & Battersby, 2016;Veldman et al, 2017). Cronbach's alpha in this study was 0.93.…”

Does the Partners in Health scale allow meaningful comparisons of chronic condition self‐management between men and women? Testing measurement invariance

“…This focus on Item 12 also provides an opportunity to modify the scale to improve psychometric properties (Lugtig, Boeije, & Lensvelt‐Mulders, ). A validation study of the PIH Dutch version with qualitative data highlighted participant confusion about the multitude of behaviours presented in Item 12… ‘ There are several things incorporated that I think are very difficult to answer ’ (Lenferink et al, ). Therefore, perhaps the removal of Item 12 prompts (i.e.…”

“…Since inception, it has been employed in a diversity of populations such as Aboriginal people (Kit, 2003), older people (Gallagher, Donoghue, Chenoweth, & Stein-Parbury, 2008;Warwick, Gallagher, Chenoweth, & Stein-Parbury, 2010), Vietnam veterans (Battersby et al, 2013) and New Zealand Maori and Pacific peoples (Walker et al, 2013). Recent PIH translations include Dutch (Lenferink et al, 2016), Mexican (Peñarrieta-de Crdóova et al, 2014), Chinese (Xiaofei et al, 2017 and Chinese in Hong Kong versions (Chiu et al, 2017).…”