Health
Constructs and Measurement
II. Psychosocial Factors
Social Support, Social Connectedness, Social Interaction
Self-Efficacy
(Behavior-Specific)
Weight
Efficacy Life-Style Questionnaire
Social Support, Social Connectedness, Social Interaction
|
+Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
|
MOS-SS Medical
Outcomes Study- Social Support Survey Sherbourne,
|
Measures
strength of perceived social support available. Measures functional
support (providing emotional support, tangible support, information,
appraisal support, and companionship. One question also measures structural
support (size of social network). |
Five dimensions: emotional support (ES), 4 items+ informational support (IS), 4 items (ES+IS subscale=8 items), tangible support (TS), 4 items, positive social interaction (PSI), 4 item, and affection (A), 3 items. Score
emotional & informational items together to derive FOUR subscales. |
Brief, self-administer questionnaire;
indicator of the availability of four categories of social support that is currently available if needed. Intended for survey research and can be used with
general population samples. |
Ordinal
scale, 20 items, summated scores
of the four subscales; 5-point answer scales (range
1-5) 1: none of
time 2: a
little/time 3:
some/time 4:
most/time 5: all of
time, + 1 additional structural support item:
Question # 1: number of close friends & relatives; |
Patients
with chronic conditions participating in the Medical Outcomes Study. Patients
sampled using staged design (3 major city sites, settings, clinicians, and
patients). Physicians (n=298) participated in main study and n=2987 patients
participated in MOS-SS portion. Ages ranged from 18-98 (x=55), 39% male, 20%
non-white, 68% married, 46% completed high school (x=13.3 years education) |
Overall
index internal-consistency reliability: α=0.97, 1-year
test-retest stability= 0.78. Internal-consistency
reliability & 1-year stability for subscales: ES/IS: α=0.96, stabil.=0.72; TS: α=0.92, stabil.=0.74; PSI: α=0.94, Stabil.=0.72; A:
α=0.91, Stabil.=
0.76. |
Convergent
validity: all items correlated highly (≥0.72). Item-scale correl ranged
from: 0.72-0.87
(TS) 0.80-0.86
(A) 0.82-0.90
(ES + IS) 0.87-0.88
(PSI) Discriminant
validity: all items in subscales correlated higher by 2 SE with their own
scale than with any other social support scale. Items also discriminated well
from validity measures (distinct from measures of loneliness, mental health,
current health, etc.). Confirmatory
factor analysis: high correl. btw emotional and information support (r=0.99).
Standardized factor loadings ranged 0.76-0.93 (TS), 0.86-0.92 (A), 0.82-0.92
(ES/IS), 0.91-0.93 (PSI). Single-item structural support has low correlation
with functional support items (0.18-0.24). |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The Center
for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) has used this measure in
studies of stress, depression, and health promotion in women with physical
disabilities. CROWD also added a rating of overall satisfaction with
relationships (question #21), not part of original MOS. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Social
Connectedness Scales (SCS) Original
Scale |
Measures
construct of belongingness. The items portray a general emotional distance
between self and others that may be experienced even among friends or close peers. Measures
difficulty feeling social connected, even in the presence of adequate social
skills.. |
Connectedness (4 items), affiliation
(3 items), and companionship
(1 item); |
Brief, self-administer questionnaire. Timing
is present. |
Original
scale – Ordinal (6 point Likert) scale; 8
items; summated scores of the three subscales; Higher scores indicate
greater sense of social connectedness and belongingness. Unlike SCS-R: Ranges from (1=strongly agree to
6=strongly disagree), with a mean of 38.85 (SC=8.09, and potential range of
8-48. Item content reflects the inverse of social connectedness (social disconnectedness
and detachment) |
N=313
nonclinical adult population (college students) |
Internally
reliable; 2-week test-retest: r= 0.96 high
internal item consistency α = .91 |
Cross-validated
SocCconn with Social Assurance scales; α= .91 and .77, respectively. (91% of total score variance for soc conn
and 77% for social assr. were due to the true score variance. |
|
|
Social
Connectedness Scales-Revised (SCS-R) |
Revised
version of the Soc-con scale. Social connectedness is a personal attribute
reflecting enduring closeness with the social world in general. Represents
patterns of interpersonal relatedness. Doesn’t measure belongingness (group
membership) or loss of specific relationships |
The revised version
contains both positively and negatively worded items. Now a 20-item scale, 10 pos and 10 neg.;
no subscales |
Brief,
Self-report. Timing is present. |
Revised
scale, 20-items, summated scores,
ordinal data, 6 point Likert scale; ranges
from 1 strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree Higher
scores indicate more social connectedness. |
n=218
undergraduates (112 men, 105 women) from large, public, southwestern
university; 9 African Americans, 29 Asian-Am, 136 European Am, 32 Hispanics,
and 12 unidentif. |
Internal
item reliability: α = .92; no significant differences by gender and
race. Test-retest not examined in this study. |
Used
maximum likelihood, exploratory factor analysis with unrotated factors; χ2 (df=133)=243.05, p<.0001. The first factor accounted for the
largest % of total variance (46%); 2nd=8%, 3rd=6%.
Convergent validity: positively correlated with measures of independent
self-construal and collective self-esteem. Social connectedness significantly
correlated with loneliness (r=-.80), self-esteem, and distress (r=-.55). ;
discriminant validity: not sign. correlated with measures of interdependent
self-construal, collective identify, somatization, OCD, phobic anxiety, and
too much interpersonal responsibility and controlling behaviors. May be some
confounding with loneliness that needs to be addressed in future research
(may be due to the loneliness scale that was used). |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Researchers
at the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) have used the
revised version of the Social Connectedness Scales in studies of stress,
depression, and healthy aging with women with physical disabilities. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Perceived
Social Support (PSS) |
Perceived
social support is the degree that one perceives his or her needs for support are
fulfilled by friends and family. |
Two scales, one
measuring perceived social support from friends (20 items), one measuring
perceived social support from family (20 items). |
Brief,
self-administered. Timing is present status. |
Both
scales are 20 items, participants may respond “yes”, “no”, or “don’t know”.
Summated scores, with each “yes” answer scoring +1. Items 2, 6, 7, 15, 18, and 20 are reversed
scored (a “no” is scored as +1). Range: 0 to 20. Higher scores indicate
greater perceived support. |
222
undergraduate psychology students. Mean age = 19 years. Mean for PSS-Fr was
15.15 (SD=5.08) and Mean for PSS-Fa was 13.40 (SD=4.83). |
The
original PSS has an alpha of 0.90, indicating the scale has excellent
internal consistency. The alpha for the final PSS-Fa ranged from .88 to .91
and the alpha for the PSS-Fr ranged from .84 to .90. Test-retest coefficient
over a one-month period was 0.83. |
Good
concurrent validity was demonstrated; scores are correlated with
psychological distress and social competence, and both measures are
associated with psychological symptoms. Scores on the PSS-Fr were predicted
by length of time as a member in the social network and the degree or
reciprocity in the relationship, while scores on the PSS-Fa were predicted by
both intangible and tangible support from family members. Participants
categorized as high and low in perceived social support by the PSS differed
in verbal disclosure. Clinical and nonclinical samples differed on both
measures. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The Center
for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) has used this measure in
studies of women with physical disabilities.. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Personal
Resource Questionnaire (PRQ 85) Weinert, C.,
and Brandt, P.A., (1987). Measuring social support with personal resource
questionnaire. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 9, 589-602. |
Measures
perceived social support as multiple dimensions of interpersonal
relationships. |
|
Self-report. |
25 items,
(1=strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). Scores range from 25 to 175, higher
scores indicate higher levels of perceived support. |
Adults
with chronic conditions and 100 community-residing adults. |
Test-retest
reliability in community-residing adults was .72. Pearson product-moment
correlation was .72. Internal consistency is high, ranging from .92 to .94. |
Content,
construct, and criteria-related validity have been established. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Stuifbergen, Seraphine,
and Roberts (2000) used this scale in a study of persons with multiple
sclerosis titled Health Promotion and Quality of Life in Chronic Illness.
Harrison and Stuifbergen (2001) used this scale in a study of disability,
social support, and depressive symptoms in 201 mothers with multiple
sclerosis. Mean scores in this sample was 137.4, with a standard deviation of
23.1, and range of 58 to 175. Stuifbergen, A.,
Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G., (2000). An explanatory model of health
promotion and quality of life in chronic illness. Nursing Research, 49
(3), 122-129. Harrison,
T., Stuifbergen, A., (2001). Disability, social support, and concern for
children: Depression in mothers with multiple sclerosis. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 31 (4), 444-453. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sallis
Social Support Scale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The Center
for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) has submitted a grant proposing
to use the Sallis Social Support Scale in a weight-management study of women
with physical disabilities. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Rand
Social Health |
Assesses
indicators of social resources while excluding situations not requiring
interaction. |
None. |
Self-Report.
Timing is past month. |
Responses
are made primarily on a 7-point scale indicating the frequency of social
connections over the previous month. |
|
The
internal consistency coefficient was .68 for the overall index, and one-year test-retest
coefficients were .55 - .68. |
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Researchers
at the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) used a 10-item
version of the original 11-item scale in a study of the cost of depression and
secondary conditions in women with physical disabilities. One item of the
scale, on writing letters, was omitted per the authors’ recommendations. The
social index scores showed moderate deterioration with increased disease
activity in multiple sclerosis (Harper and Harper, 1986). Harper, A.C., Harper, D.A., (1986). An
epidemiological description of physical, social, and psychological problems
in multiple sclerosis. Journal of
Chronic Disease, 39, 305-10. |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mutual Connectedness
Scale (MCS) CROWD
instrument – no citation |
Measures
mutual connectedness as a separate construct from social support or social
connectedness; implies an interaction or connection between other people. |
None |
Self-administered, current relationships with others. |
12 items,
ordinal (Likert) scale. Range: 1=never 2=rarely 3=sometimes 4=often 5=always |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The Center
for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) developed the MCS for use in
studies of stress, depression, and health promoting behaviors in women with
physical disabilities. |
|||||||
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Generalized
Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) Jerusalem
& Schwarzer (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress
appraisal processes. In Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action. (Original
instrument developed in German) |
Self-efficacy
can be measured as a general, dispositional trait which is relatively stable
over time, not just in terms of confidence to perform a specific behavior.
Assesses the strength of a person’s belief in ability to deal with any
obstacles or setbacks. |
None |
Self-administered,
current or present timing. |
Ordinal
scale, 10 items, 4-point
answer scales (range
1-4) 1:not at
all true 2:barely
true 3:moder.
true 4: exactly
true summated
scores (range from 10-40, with higher scores indicate greater confidence in
generalized self-efficacy). |
Published
norms based upon 1,660 community-dwelling adults in |
High
internal consistency. Alpha coefficients for five samples in |
Concurrent
validity was supported by findings of expected associations between other
psychosocial variables. The GSES correlates negatively with depression,
anxiety, and physical symptoms (lower GSES scores are associated with higher
levels of depression). Factor analyses confirmed that the scale is
unidimensional. |
|
|
|||||||
|
Generalized
Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) Barlow,
J., Williams, B., & Wright, C. (1996). The generalized self-efficacy
scale in people with arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research, 9 (3),
189-196. (English
Version) |
Same as
original measure. |
none |
Self-administered,
current or present timing. |
Ordinal
scale, 10 items, 4-point
answer scales (range
1-4) 1:not at
all true 2:barely
true 3:moder.
true 4: exactly
true summated
scores (range from 10-40, with higher scores indicate greater confidence in
generalized self-efficacy). |
Describes
4 studies; study 1 (n=53) persons with arthritis) tested comprehensibility;
study 2 (n=80 older people with arthritis), study 3 (n=79 adults with
arthritis), & study 4 (n=66 adult education sample) tested validity and
reliability. Most participants had RA and OA. Mean scores were 29.05 (SD
5.1), 28.71 (S.D. 5.9), and 30.23 (S.D. 4.8), for each of the 3 studies,
resp. |
Inter-item
correlations ranged 0.08 to 0.83 across the 3 studies. (Item 2 assoc with
several insignificant correlations, and corrected item total correlations
ranged from 0.30 to 0.81, all significant). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.88,
0.91, and 0.89 resp. Stability over 4-month period, with test-retest
reliability coefficient of 0.63 (p<0.0001). |
Factor
analyses with sampling adequacy confirmed by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure,
factor model supported by Only one
significant association found between GSES scores and demographic variables
(being male- higher; r=-0.27, p=0.029). No assoc. between physical health
status, pain, or fatigue and GSES. GSES was inversely related w/depression
and positively associated with positive affect and social support in all 3
studies. In study 2 (sample of older people), GSES was positively associated
with social support and negatively associated with health distress.
Controlling for demographic and physical variables and using hierarchical
regression analyses, GSES was significantly associated with depression (β=-0.30, P=0.018), and positive affect (β
=0.49,P=0.0001). |
|
Disability populations used: |
Researchers have
used this scale in persons with arthritis (see below). The Center for
Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) has used this measure in studies
of stress, depression, and health promotion in women with physical
disabilities. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
General Self-Efficacy
Scale (GSES) Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., et al.,
(1982). The
self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports,
51, 663-671. |
Measures
degree of agreement with perceived personal ability to affect outcomes in
various situations. |
None. |
Self-report,
present/ current timing. |
17-items,
5-point Likert scale. Summated scores range from 17-85. Higher scores
indicated greater general self-efficacy. |
|
Cronbach
alpha coefficient of .86. |
Construct
validity is established by confirmation of expected relationships with other
psychological constructs. |
|
Disability populations used: |
Used by Becker, Stuifbergen,
Ingalsbe, and Sands (1989) in a study of health promoting attitudes and
behaviors among people with disabilities. Stuifbergen and Becker (1994)
report the alpha coefficient in this population was .87. Tate and colleagues
(2002) used this scale in a health promotion study of people with spinal cord
injury. Becker, H.A.,
Stuifbergen, A.K., Ingalsbe, K., and Sands, D., (1989). Health promoting
attitudes and behaviors among persons with disabilities. International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 12 (3), 235-250. Stuifbergen,
A.K., and Becker, H.A., (1994). Predictors of health promoting lifestyles in
persons with disabilities. Research in Nursing and Health, 17, 3-13. Tate, D.G.,
Chiodo, A., Nelson, V., et al., (2002). The effect of a holistic health
promotion program on individuals with spinal cord injury. Final
Report of Study Findings. |
||||||
Self-Efficacy (Behavior-Specific)
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Arthritis
Self-Efficacy Scale Lorig, K.,
Chastain, R.L., Ung, E., Shoor, S., and Holman, H., (1989). Development and evaluation
of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis.
Arthritis and Rheumatism, 32 (1), 37-44. |
Measures
perceived self-efficacy (SE) to cope with chronic arthritis. Based upon
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, and assumption that self-efficacy is
behavior-specific (can not be considered as generalized). |
Subscales: Pain (PSE), 5 items, function in performing activities in daily living
(FSE), 9 items, and other symptoms
(OSE) (e.g. fatigue, aggravating
arthritis), 6 items. |
Self-report,
current/ present timing. |
Scale of
10 (very uncertain) to 100 (very certain); 50 represents moderately
uncertain. Each subscale is scored separately by taking the mean of the subscale
items. In the event of missing data, score is a mean of completed data. |
97 persons
with chronic arthritis participating in an arthritis self-management course. |
High
internal reliability. Alpha coefficients were 0.93 for FSE and 0.90 for OSE.
Results were replicated with another sample of 144 participants with
arthritis, and coefficient alphas for internal reliability were .89 for FSE,
0.87 for OSE, and 0.76 for PSE. Test-retest reliability in a third sample of
91 participants with arthritis was also conducted. Item reliabilities ranged
from 0.71 to 0.85, subscale reliabilities were 0.85 for FSE, 0.90 for OSE,
and 0.87 for PSE. Average time between completion of scales was 9.4 days
(range=2-9 days). |
Construct
validity was established by finding of association between present and future
health status, as self-efficacy theory predicts. Significant correlations
were observed between baseline self-efficacy and baseline health status, and
between 4-month SE and 4-month health status. OSE was highly related to
depression as measured by the BDI-II, FSE was highly correlated with function
(disability) as measured by the Stanford HAQ. FSE items were tested for
concurrent validity by a masked trained observer who rated degree of
difficulty for performing ADLs. Actual performance and self-efficacy were
moderately correlated. Confirmatory subscales analyses were also conducted. |
|
Disability populations used: |
Persons
with chronic arthritis participating in a self-management program (Lorig et
al., 1996). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Lorig, K.
Stewart, A., Ritter, P., Gonzalez, V., Laurent, D., & Lynch, J. (1996).
Outcome measures for health education and other health care interventions. |
|
|
|
|
People
with arthritis (and other chronic health conditions) |
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
This scale
has been used with persons with chronic arthritis participating in a
self-management program (Lorig et al., 1996). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Self-Rated
Abilities for Health Practices Scale (SRAHP) Becker,
H., Stuifbergen, A., Oh, H.S., & Hall, A., (1993). The self-rated
abilities for health practices scale: A health-efficacy measure. Health
Values, 17, 42-50. |
Measures
beliefs (self-efficacy) about one’s abilities to perform specific health
promoting behaviors. |
Domains:
nutrition, physical activity/ exercise, psychological well-being, and
responsible health practices. |
Self-rated,
current or present timing. Stem, “I am able to”. |
28 items,
5-point Likert scale (0=not at all, 4=completely). Summated scores, range
0-112 (higher scores indicated greater self-efficacy). |
Pilot
tested with 15 persons with disabilities, and samples of 188 health fair
participants and 111 undergraduate nursing students. |
Cronbach’s
alpha for the total scale was .94 in both the health fair and nursing student
samples. Two-week test-retest reliability in the nursing student sample was
.70, two-week test retest reliability in undergraduate samples was .73. |
Principal
components factor analysis from the health fair sample supported that the
four-factor solution accounted for 61% of the total variance. The Self-Rated
Abilities for Health Practices Scale was correlated with other health
attitude and behavior measures, supporting concurrent validity of the scale.
Scores were negatively correlated with the Barriers to Health Promotion Scale
and positively correlated with the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile. |
|
Disability populations used: |
Stuifbergen and Becker
(1994) used this scale in a study of 117 persons with disabilities.
Stuifbergen, Becker, Blozis, Timmerman, and Kullberg, (2000) used this
instrument in a sample of 142 women with multiple sclerosis. Stuifbergen,
Seraphine, and Roberts (2000) have used this scale in a sample of persons
with multiple sclerosis in a study titled Health Promotion and Quality of
Life in Chronic Illness. Tate and colleagues (2002) used this scale in a
health promotion study of people with spinal cord injury. Stuifbergen,
A.K., and Becker, H.A., (1994). Predictors of health promoting lifestyles in
persons with disabilities. Research in Nursing and Health, 17, 3-13. Stuifbergen,
A.K., Becker, H.A., Blozis, S., Timmerman, G., and Kullberg, V., (2000). A
randomized clinical trial of a wellness intervention for women with multiple
sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84,
(April), 467-476. Stuifbergen, A.,
Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G., (2000). An explanatory model of health
promotion and quality of life in chronic illness. Nursing Research, 49
(3), 122-129. Tate, D.G.,
Chiodo, A., Nelson, V., et al., (2002). The effect of a holistic health
promotion program on individuals with
spinal cord injury. Final Report of Study Findings. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Confidence (self-efficacy
for physical activity) CROWD-developed
measure modeled from the format used by Lorig, Stewart, Ritter, Gonzalez,
Laurent, and Lynch, 1996 |
Assesses
self-efficacy for exercise using three questions concerning
exercise (confidence to do gentle flexibility exercise, confidence to do
gentle exercises for muscle strength 3-4 x week), confidence to do aerobic
exercise 3-4 x week), exercise that will not make symptoms worse |
N/A |
Self-administered,
present status |
4 items, interval scale; higher scores
indicate greater self-efficacy. Range: 1=not at
all confident to 10 =
totally confident; |
Women with
physical disabilities (Health Promotion Pilot study), women with physical
disabilities over the age of 45 (Healthy Aging Study) |
As
measured by Cronbach’s alpha, the internal consistency was 0.78 and 0.74 for
post-test. |
|
|
Confidence – nutrition/diet (self-efficacy
for diet and nutritional supplements) This
measure was modeled from the format used by Lorig, Stewart, Ritter, Gonzalez,
Laurent, and Lynch, 1996 |
5
questions concerning nutrition and vitamin (confidence to eat a well-balanced
diet, to follow doctor-recommended diet, select foods to help maintain ideal
weight, select vitamins when needed, read food labels) |
N/A |
Self-administered,
present status |
5 items, interval scale; higher scores
indicate greater self-efficacy. Range: 1=not at
all confident to 10 =
totally confident; |
Women with
physical disabilities (Health Promotion Pilot study), women with physical
disabilities over the age of 45 (Healthy Aging Study) |
As
measured by Cronbach’s alpha, the internal consistency was 0.89 and 0.78 for
post-test. |
|
|
Confidence for non-smoking
CROWD (no
reference);developed based on format used by Lorig, |
2 questions
concerning smoking; the first asks how confident are you that you could quit,
the second asks how confident that you could avoid smoking permanently once
you quit. |
N/A |
Self-administered,
present status |
2 items, interval scale; higher scores indicate
greater self-efficacy. Range: 1=not at
all confident to 10 =
totally confident |
Women with
physical disabilities (Health Promotion Pilot study), women with physical
disabilities over the age of 45 (Healthy Aging Study) |
Internal
reliability has not yet been established. |
|
|
Confidence for medical care
This
measure was modeled from the format used by Lorig, Stewart, Ritter, Gonzalez,
Laurent, and Lynch, 1996 |
2 items concerning
active participation in medical care.(confidence that you can get medical
care when you need it & judge when changes in your health mean you should
visit a doctor) |
N/A |
Self-administered,
present status |
2 items, interval scale; higher scores indicate
greater self-efficacy. Range: 1 to 10
(as above) |
Women with
physical disabilities (Health Promotion Pilot study), women with physical
disabilities over the age of 45 (Healthy Aging Study) |
Cronbach’s
alpha: 0.56 for pre-test, 0.42 for post-test. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The Center
for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) has developed and used these
confidence scales in studies of health promotion and healthy aging in women
with physical disabilities. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Diabetes
Management Self-Efficacy Scale The
psychometric properties of the Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale for
patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Bijl, J.,
Poelgeest-Eeltink, A., and Shortridge-Baggett, L., (1999). Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 30 (2), 352-359. |
Measures
respondents’ belief in ability to carry out self-care activities in order to
manage their diabetes. |
None. |
Self-report,
current or present timing. |
20 items,
5-point Likert scale: Yes,
surely Probably
yes Maybe
yes/maybe no Probably
not No, surely
not |
105
patients with Type 2 diabetes, 94 participated in the retest. The average age
was 64 (range 21 to 83), and 47% were men, 53% women. Average time with
diabetes was 3 years. |
Internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was α = 0.81; 5-week test-retest
reliability was r=.79 (p<0.001). |
Construct
and content validity was supported. |
|
Disability populations used: |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Lo, R., (1999).
Correlates of expected success at adherence to health regimen of people with
IDDM. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30 (2), 418-424. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
Weight Efficacy Life-Style
Questionnaire
Perceived Locus of Control
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description & Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Multidimensional
Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Wallston,
B.S., Wallston, |
Three scores
can be obtained: |
|
|
18 items |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
The MHLC
was used by Becker, Stuifbergen, Ingalsbe, and Sands in a study of health
promoting attitudes and behaviors among people with disabilities. The HLC has
been used in a study of persons with chronic arthritis participating in a
self-management program (Lorig et al., 1985). Becker, H.A.,
Stuifbergen, A.K., Ingalsbe, K., and Sands, D., (1989). International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 12 (3), 235-250. Lorig, K., |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
Coping Orientation
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Coping
Styles Inventory |
Assesses 3
coping methods: active-cognitive, active behavioral, and avoidance. |
Active-cognitive
(6 items), active behavioral (6 items), and avoidance (5 items). Also
classified into two focus of coping forms: Problem-focused (6 items) and
emotion focused (11 items). |
Self-administered;
based upon past-tense (previous stressful life event) |
Respondents
identify one recent stressful life event and then respond to 19 “yes” or “no”
items assessing how they dealt with the event. |
|
Moderate
internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.62. Alpha was reported as
0.80 for active- behavioral, 0.72 for active-cognitive, and 0.44 for
avoidance coping. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Coping
Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) Keefe, F.J.,
Brown, G.K., Wallston, K.A., (1989). Coping with rheumatoid arthritis pain:
catastrophizing as a maladaptive strategy. Pain, 37, 51-56. Swartzman,
L.C., Gwadry, F.G., Shapiro, A.P, Teasell, R.W., (1994). The factor structure
of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Pain, 57, 311-316. |
Assesses
use of coping strategies in response to pain. |
8 subscales
represent pain-related coping strategies: diverting
attention, reinterpreting pain sensations, coping self-statements, ignoring
pain sensations, praying or hoping, increasing activities, pain behaviors,
and catastrophizing. |
Self-report,
current/present timing. |
48 items,
7 point LIkert. Participants endorse the extent of their use of each strategy
in response to pain (3=sometimes). |
|
Adequate
internal consistency and high degree of stability over time (6-month
test-retest reliability=.81). |
Construct
validity has been established for most subscales. |
|
Disability populations used: |
The CSQ has
been used in samples of persons with chronic back pain (Rosenstiel &
Keefe, 1983), persons with rheumatoid arthritis pain (Keefe, Brown, and
Wallston, 1989), and in women with fibromyalgia (Hassett, Cone, Patella, and
Sigal, 2000). Hassett,
A.L., Cone, J.D., Patella, S.J., and Sigal, L.H., (2000). The role of
catastrophizing in the pain and depression of women with fibromyalgia
syndrome. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 42 (11), 2493-2500. Keefe,
F.J., Brown, G.K., and Wallston, K.A., (1989). Coping with rheumatoid
arthritis pain: catastrophizing as a maladaptive strategy. Pain, 37,
51-56. Rosenstiel,
A.K., and Keefe, F.J., (1983). The use of coping strategies in chronic low
back pain patients: relationships to patient characteristics and current
adjustment. Pain, 17, 33-40. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Cole, J.D.,
(1988). Psychotherapy with the chronic pain patient using coping skills
development: Outcome study. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology 3(3):217-226. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
Self-Esteem
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
|
|
none |
Self-administered,
present tense |
10-item
Guttman scale rating. Participants rate their agreement (1=strongly agree to
4=strongly disagree) with each of the 10 statements, and items are summed
such that lower overall scores reflect greater self-esteem. |
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Used
extensively with adults who have physical disabilities, including women
(Nosek, |
||||||
|
Index of
Self-Esteem (ISE) |
Measures
the extent to which an individual has a problem with self-esteem. |
none |
Self-admin |
25-item
scale; participants indicate how they see themselves by rating each statement
on a 5-point scale (1= rarely or none of the time to 5= most or all of the
time). The scale consists of items reflecting high as well as low
self-esteem, and scores are summed such that lower overall scores reflect
greater self-esteem. |
|
The ISE
has a mean alpha across studies of 0.93, indicating excellent internal
consistency, a test-retest correlation of 0.92 |
Evidence
has been obtained indicating it has construct validity. |
|
Disability populations used: |
Used extensively
with adults who have physical disabilities, including women (Nosek, |
||||||
Body Image
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Body Areas
Satisfaction Scale (BASS) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
||||||
|
Body Image
Quality of Life Inventory (Weight Management) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability populations used: |
|
||||||
Parenting Scales
|
Instrument Name and Original
Reference |
Instrument Description &
Construct Measured |
Dimensions/ subscales |
Indicator (Timing + Source of
Data) |
Variables (Number of Items, Scale,
& Range) |
Test Population |
Instrument Reliability |
Psychometric Review of Instrument
Validity |
|
Concern
for Children Scale Harrison, T.,
Stuifbergen, A., (2001). Disability, social support, and concern for
children: Depression in mothers with multiple sclerosis. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 31 (4), 444-453. |
|
|
|
5 items: 0=not at
all 4=extremely |
Mothers with
multiple sclerosis. |
Cronbach’s
alpha =.79. |
|
|
Disability populations used: |
Scale created by
Harrison and Stuifbergen (2001) based upon items from the Demands of Illness
(DOI) Inventory. Harrison, T., Stuifbergen,
A., (2001). Disability, social support, and concern for children: Depression
in mothers with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and
Neonatal Nursing, 31
(4), 444-453. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||