Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorGuo, Lina
dc.contributor.authorSöderhamn, Ulrika
dc.contributor.authorMcCallum, Jacqueline
dc.contributor.authorDing, Xianfei
dc.contributor.authorGao, Han
dc.contributor.authorGuo, Qiyun
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Kun
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Yanjin
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-17T06:21:03Z
dc.date.available2017-08-17T06:21:03Z
dc.date.created2017-08-10T19:20:56Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2450953
dc.description.abstractObjectives The study aimed to test and compare the reliability and validity, including sensitivity and specificity of the two self-care-related instruments, the Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE), and the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale-Revised (ASAS-R), among older adults in the Chinese context. Methods A cross-sectional design was used to conduct this study. The sample consisted of 1152 older adults. Data were collected by a questionnaire including the Chinese version of SASE (SASE-CHI), the Chinese version of ASAS-R (ASAS-R-CHI) and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency scale (ESCA). Homogeneity and stability, content, construct and concurrent validity, and sensitivity and specificity were assessed. Results The Cronbach's alpha (α) of SASE-CHI was 0.89, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.15 to r = 0.81, and the test-retest correlation coefficient (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99±1.00; P<0.001). The Cronbach's α of ASAS-R-CHI was 0.78, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.20 to r = 0.65, and the test-retest ICC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92±0.96; P<0.001). The content validity index (CVI) of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI was 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The findings of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) confirmed a good construct validity of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI. The Pearson's rank correlation coefficients, as a measure of concurrent validity, between total score of SASE-CHI and ESCA and ASAS-R-CHI and ESCA were assessed to 0.65 (P<0.001) and 0.62 (P<0.001), respectively. Regarding ESCA as the criterion, the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the cut-point of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91±0.94) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80±0.86), respectively. Conclusion There is no significant difference between the two instruments. Each has its own characteristics, but SASE-CHI is more suitable for older adults. The key point is that the users can choose the most appropriate scale according to the specific situation.
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.relation.urihttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182792
dc.rightsNavngivelse-Ikkekommersiell-DelPåSammeVilkår 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleTesting and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adultsnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionpublishedVersion
dc.source.volume12nb_NO
dc.source.journalPLoS ONEnb_NO
dc.source.issue8nb_NO
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0182792
dc.identifier.cristin1485592
dc.description.localcodeNivå1
cristin.unitcode201,18,1,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for helse- og sykepleievitenskap
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell-DelPåSammeVilkår 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell-DelPåSammeVilkår 4.0 Internasjonal