DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the HIV Self-Management Scale in Patients with HIV

  • Kim, Gwang Suk (Nursing Policy Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University) ;
  • Chu, Sang Hui (Nursing Policy Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Yunhee (Department of Nursing, Youngdong University) ;
  • Choi, Jun Yong (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Jeong In (Division of Nursing, Yonsei University Health System) ;
  • Park, Chang Gi (College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago) ;
  • McCreary, Linda L. (Health Systems Science.College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago)
  • Received : 2014.10.29
  • Accepted : 2015.03.04
  • Published : 2015.06.30

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine validity and reliability of Webel and colleagues'HIV Self-Management Scale when used with a Korean sample. Methods: The original 20-item HIV Self-Management Scale was translated into Korean using translation and back-translation. Nine HIV nurse experts tested content validity. Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data from 203 patients was used to test construct validity. Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlation with patients'self-rating as a "mart patient"measured using a visual analogue scale. Internal consistency was tested by Cronbach' alpha coefficients. Results: All items were rated as having satisfactory content validity. Based on PCA and consideration of conceptual meaning, a three-factor solution was selected, explaining 48.76% of the variance. CFA demonstrated the adequacy of the three-domain structure of the construct HIV self-management: daily self-management health practices, social support and HIV self-management, and chronic nature of HIV self-management. Goodness-of-fit indices showed an acceptable fit overall with the full model (${\chi}^2/df_{(164)}=1.66$, RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.05, TLI=0.91, and CFI=0.92). The Korean version of the HIV Self-Management Scale (KHSMS) was significantly correlated with patients'self-rated smart patient (r=.41). The subscale Cronbach' alpha coefficients ranged from .78 to .81; alpha for the total scale was .89. Conclusion: The KHSMS provides a valid and reliable measure of self-management in Korean patients with HIV. Continued psychometric testing is recommended to provide further evidence of validity with this population.

Keywords

References

  1. Korea Federation for HIV/AIDS Prevention. HIV/AIDS statistics [Internet]. Seoul: Author; 2013 [cited 2013 June 16]. Available from: http://www.kaids.or.kr/?c=2/37/41/70.
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data-nited States and 6 U.S. dependent areas-010. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2011;17(3) [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: Author; 2011 [cited 2013 June 16]. Available from: http:// www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/2010/surveillance_Report_vol_17_no_3.html.
  3. Aberg JA. The changing face of HIV care: Common things really are common. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006;145(6):463-465. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-145-6-200609190-00011
  4. Webel AR, Asher A, Cuca Y, Okonsky JG, Kaihura A, Dawson Rose C, et al. Measuring HIV self-management in women living with HIV/AIDS: A psychometric evaluation study of the HIV Selfmanagement Scale. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2012;60(3):e72-e81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e318256623d
  5. World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases and mental health cluster. Innovative care for chronic conditions: Building blocks for actions : Global report. Geneva, CH: Autor; 2002.
  6. Siegel K, Lekas HM. AIDS as a chronic illness: Psychosocial implications. AIDS. 2002;16(Suppl 4):S69-S76. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200216004-00010
  7. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2003;26 (1):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2601_01
  8. Swendeman D, Ingram BL, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Common elements in self-management of HIV and other chronic illnesses: An integrative framework. AIDS Care. 2009;21(10):1321-1334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540120902803158
  9. Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1987;34(4): 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414
  10. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. 1996;1(2):130-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.1.2.130
  11. Park CS, Yoo YS, Choi DW, Park HJ, Kim JI. Development and evaluation of "hospice smart patient" service program. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2011;41(1):9-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2011.41.1.9
  12. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research. 1992;5(4):194-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
  13. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986;35(6):382-385.
  14. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2010.
  15. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008;6(1):53-60.
  16. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2014.
  17. Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007;42(5):893-898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
  18. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  19. McDonald RP, Ho MH. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods. 2002;7(1):64-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
  20. Han HR, Kim KB, Kang J, Jeong S, Kim EY, Kim MT. Knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors about hypertension control among middle-aged Korean Americans with hypertension. Journal of Community Health. 2007;32(5):324-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10900-007-9051-y
  21. Shrestha AD, Kosalram K, Gopichandran V. Gender difference in care of type 2 diabetes. JNMA: Journal of the Nepal Medical Association. 2013;52(189):245-250.
  22. Kara B. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the thirst distress scale in patients on hemodialysis. Asian Nursing Research. 2013;7(4):212-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2013.10.001
  23. Chou FY. Testing a predictive model of the use of HIV/AIDS symptom self-care strategies. AIDS Patient Care and STDS. 2004;18(2):109-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/108729104322802533
  24. Aschner P, Horton E, Leiter LA, Munro N, Skyler JS. Practical steps to improving the management of type 1 diabetes: Recommendations from the global partnership for effective diabetes management. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2010;64(3):305-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02296.x
  25. Breaux-Shropshire TL, Brown KC, Pryor ER, Maples EH. Relationship of blood pressure self-monitoring, medication adherence, self-efficacy, stage of change, and blood pressure control among municipal workers with hypertension. Workplace Health & Safety. 2012;60(7):303-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/21650799-20120625-04
  26. Pai HC, Lee S, Yen WJ, Lee MY. Testing of the factor structure of the sexual health knowledge measure with young adolescent Taiwanese girls. Health Care for Women International. 2013;34(10):878-890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2012.700357
  27. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.
  28. Gomes B, McCrone P, Hall S, Riley J, Koffman J, Higginson IJ. Cognitive interviewing of bereaved relatives to improve the measurement of health outcomes and care utilisation at the end of life in a mortality followback survey. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2013;21 (10):2835-2844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1848-x
  29. Kim YM, Bazant E, Storey JD. Smart patient, smart community: Improving client participation in family planning consultations through a community education and mass-media program in Indonesia. International Quarterly of Community Health Education. 2006;26(3):247-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/IQ.26.3.d
  30. Yohannes AM, Dodd M, Morris J, Webb K. Reliability and validity of a single item measure of quality of life scale for adult patients with cystic fibrosis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2011;9:105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-105

Cited by

  1. Psychometric Properties of Turkish Version of the Dutch Objective Burden Inventory vol.9, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2015.07.001
  2. Mediators and Moderators of Health-Related Quality of Life in People Living with HIV vol.29, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2018.02.001
  3. Development of a Question Prompt List for Patients Living With HIV and Assessment of Their Information Needs vol.30, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/jnc.0000000000000080
  4. Testing a Question Prompt Intervention to Improve Communication between Patients with HIV and Healthcare Providers: A Pilot Study vol.37, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370016.2020.1780045
  5. Identification of Self-Management Behavior Clusters Among People Living with HIV in China: A Latent Class Profile Analysis vol.15, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s315432
  6. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Diabetes Family Impact Scale vol.26, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/jspn.12308