4.6 Article

Reliability and validity of the Icelandic version of the problem area in diabetes (PAID) scale

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 526-533

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.10.008

关键词

insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; paid scale; reliability; validity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Diabetes is a burdensome disease that increases distress among people with diabetes. Objectives: To test the validity and reliability of an Icelandic version of the problem area in diabetes scale (PAID) and to assess the hitherto unknown distress level of Icelandic people with insulin requiring diabetes. Design: Methodological research design. Setting: Diabetes clinics. Participants: People with insulin-dependent diabetes, between 18 and 61 years. Methods: All instruments were translated using a back-translation technique. Participants answered three consecutive questionnaires in succession, the PAID scale, the diabetes empowerment scale (DES) and the diabetes knowledge test (DKT). Principical component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on the PAID scale to identify latent factors. Results: Factor analysis revealed two factors: (a) distress in relation to life with diabetes, with Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.93 and (b) distress in relation to management of diabetes, with Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.88, for PAID overall Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.94. PAID showed neither floor nor ceilings effects. Propositions set to indicate validity were generally met. However, PAID's factor structure and predictive validity needs to be tested further. Conclusions: The Icelandic version of PAID is sufficiently psychometrically robust. PAID is simple to administer and by using the scale clinicians can identify people at risk for developing diabetes-related distress. The results are comparable to results from studies in other countries using the PAID scale. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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