María Jesús Valero-Chillerón , Irene Llagostera-Reverter , David Luna-Aleixós , Mayte Moreno-Casbas , Laura Andreu-Pejó , Víctor M. González-Chordá
{"title":"Exploring the construct validity of the Barthel index in a sample of Spanish hospitalised patients","authors":"María Jesús Valero-Chillerón , Irene Llagostera-Reverter , David Luna-Aleixós , Mayte Moreno-Casbas , Laura Andreu-Pejó , Víctor M. González-Chordá","doi":"10.1016/j.enfcle.2023.06.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Examine the construct validity of the Barthel Index in adult inpatient units.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>A secondary analysis was performed on a sample of 1342 adult patients admitted to inpatient units. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Barthel Index did not confirm its unidimensional structure (CFA-1). Therefore, two methods were explored to find a solution with a better fit. The sequence of the classical exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods was carried out (CFA-2). In contrast, a Gaussian graphical model and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA-3) were performed. Three models were compared on the basis of several goodness-of-fit indicators.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>CFA-1 results (χ2 = 161,616; <em>P</em> < .001; RMSEA = .183) indicated a poor fit between the model and the data. Exploratory factor analysis provided a model with two dimensions that explained 86% of the variance and improved the goodness-of-fit in CFA-2 (χ2 = 846; <em>P</em> < .001; RMSEA = .133). The Gaussian graphical model, by removing the item ‘Bladder’, offered a solution with three dimensions that improved the goodness-of-fit compared to the previous models (χ2 = 492; <em>P</em> < .001; RMSEA = .09).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The Barthel Index is not a unidimensional measure of functional capacity when applied to adult inpatient units. The best-fitting model has a three-dimensional structure (Hygiene; Feeding and disposal; Mobility) that relates to the domains of care needs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72917,"journal":{"name":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","volume":"33 5","pages":"Pages 370-374"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2445147923000565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
Examine the construct validity of the Barthel Index in adult inpatient units.
Method
A secondary analysis was performed on a sample of 1342 adult patients admitted to inpatient units. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Barthel Index did not confirm its unidimensional structure (CFA-1). Therefore, two methods were explored to find a solution with a better fit. The sequence of the classical exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods was carried out (CFA-2). In contrast, a Gaussian graphical model and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA-3) were performed. Three models were compared on the basis of several goodness-of-fit indicators.
Results
CFA-1 results (χ2 = 161,616; P < .001; RMSEA = .183) indicated a poor fit between the model and the data. Exploratory factor analysis provided a model with two dimensions that explained 86% of the variance and improved the goodness-of-fit in CFA-2 (χ2 = 846; P < .001; RMSEA = .133). The Gaussian graphical model, by removing the item ‘Bladder’, offered a solution with three dimensions that improved the goodness-of-fit compared to the previous models (χ2 = 492; P < .001; RMSEA = .09).
Conclusion
The Barthel Index is not a unidimensional measure of functional capacity when applied to adult inpatient units. The best-fitting model has a three-dimensional structure (Hygiene; Feeding and disposal; Mobility) that relates to the domains of care needs.