Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The structural and convergent validity of three commonly used measures of self-management in persons with neurological conditions
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The structural and convergent validity of three commonly used measures of self-management in persons with neurological conditions
Do you wish to request the book?
The structural and convergent validity of three commonly used measures of self-management in persons with neurological conditions
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The structural and convergent validity of three commonly used measures of self-management in persons with neurological conditions
2019
Overview
Purpose
Self-management ability is commonly assessed in chronic disease research and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the structural and convergent validity of three commonly used self-management outcome measures in a sample of persons with neurological conditions.
Methods
We used data from a Canadian survey of persons with neurological conditions, which included three commonly used self-management measures: the Partners in Health Scale (PIH), the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), and the Self-Efficacy for Managing a Chronic Disease Scale (SEMCD). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the structural and convergent validity of the three measures.
Results
When treated as single-factor constructs, none of the measurement models provided a good fit to the data. A four-domain version of the PIH was the best fitting model. Confirmatory factor analysis suggests that the three tools measure different, but correlated constructs.
Conclusions
While the PAM, PIH and SEMCD scales are all used as measures of patient self-management, our study indicates that they measure different, but correlated latent variables. None, when treated as single, uni-dimensional construct, provides an acceptable fit to our data. This is probably because self-management is multi-dimensional, as is consistently shown by qualitative evidence. While these measures may provide reliable summative measures, multi-dimensional scales are needed for clinical use and more detailed research on self-management.
Publisher
Springer Science + Business Media,Springer International Publishing,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.