scholarly journals The Impairment and Functioning Inventory Revised‐English Version: a validation study in individuals with disabilities and bothersome pain

PM&R ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Ramírez‐Maestre ◽  
Rosa Esteve ◽  
Alicia E. López‐Martínez ◽  
Mark P. Jensen ◽  
Jordi Miró ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-136
Author(s):  
Carlos Zubaran ◽  
Elham Zolfaghari ◽  
Katia Foresti ◽  
Jonathan Emerson ◽  
Rishi Sud ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 484-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasemin Koçak Usluel ◽  
Mehmet Kokoç ◽  
Hatice Çıralı Sarıca ◽  
Sacide Güzin Mazman Akar

2001 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 759-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex H. S. Harris ◽  
Samuel Standard

A validation study of the English version of the 28-item Life Regard Index–Revised was undertaken with a sample of 91 participants from the general population. All previous studies of the Index have examined the Dutch version. The test-retest reliabilities at 8 wk. for the total Index ( r = .87), Framework ( r = .82), and Fulfillment ( r = .81) subscales were very high. Cronbach alphas were .92, .83, and .87, respectively. A significant restriction of range was observed at the high-meaning end of the scale. Factor analysis only weakly supported the theorized two-factor structure. A very high disattenuated correlation between the Framework and Fulfillment subscales was observed ( r = .94). The Index appeared to have adequate evidence supporting its concurrent and discriminant validity when compared with measures of hopelessness, spiritual well-being, and other measures of personal meaning. A significant positive association was found between the index and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ( r = .38). The Index was also significantly associated with sex (women scoring higher) and marital status (divorced people scoring lower). Revisions of the English version may address the restriction of range problem by employing a 5-point rating scale, instead of the current 3-point scale, or by adding more discriminating items. Further factor-analytic studies with larger samples are needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding this scale's factor structure.


Author(s):  
Sugiharto Sh ◽  
Yu Yun Hsu ◽  
Deborah J. Toobert ◽  
Shan Tair Wang

Introduction: Diabetes self-care activities is a complex regimen, that required an appropriate tools to asses. The Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) questionnaire is the most widely used tool for assess diabetes self-care activities. The study aimed to testing validity and reliability of the Bahasa Indonesia version of the SDSCA. Methods:  The study applied a forward-backward translation strategy. A pretest and a validation study were conducted. The Bahasa Indonesia version of the SDSCA was reviewed by an expert panel for conceptual and content equivalence to the English version. Furthermore, forty-five and 125 patients with T2DM participated in the pretest and the validation study, respectively. The psychometric properties were evaluated in terms of internal consistency, content validity, concurrent validity, and construct validity. Results:  The content validity index (CVI) and the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) were satisfactory, which are 0.98, and 0.72, respectively. The exploratory factor analysis revealed that SDSCA-I are consistent with the original English version. There are significant correlations between three subscales of SDSCA-I and the diabetes knowledge levels namely general diet (r = 0.274, p = 0.002), physical activity (r = 0.269, p = 0.002), and foot care (r = 0.297, p = 0.001). SDSCA-I was significantly correlated with HbA1c values, in term of general diet (r = -0.205, p = 0.022) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (r = -0.265, p = 0.003). Conclusions:  The translation and psychometric test of the SDSCA-I were satisfactory. The tool could assess the self-care activities of Indonesians with T2DM in all settings. 


2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 791
Author(s):  
C. Vuillerot ◽  
P. Rippert ◽  
C. Berard ◽  
C. Bonnemann ◽  
K. Meilleur ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 416-416
Author(s):  
Shai Sheji ◽  
Ruth Weissenberg ◽  
Gil Raviv ◽  
Igael Madgar

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document