Progressing the Death Literacy Index: the development of a revised version (DLI-R) and a short format (DLI-9).

IF 2.7 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative Care and Social Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26323524241274806
Kerrie Noonan, Andrea Grindrod, Sumina Shrestha, Sora Lee, Rosemary Leonard, Therese Johansson
{"title":"Progressing the Death Literacy Index: the development of a revised version (DLI-R) and a short format (DLI-9).","authors":"Kerrie Noonan, Andrea Grindrod, Sumina Shrestha, Sora Lee, Rosemary Leonard, Therese Johansson","doi":"10.1177/26323524241274806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since the development of the Death Literacy Index (DLI) in 2019 in Australia, subsequent internationally validated versions have prompted rewording and refinement of the original survey questions. Use of the DLI in the community has also resulted in requests for a short format.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine and report on the psychometric properties of a revised version of the DLI-R and develop a short format DLI-9.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A cross-sectional national survey was conducted for the validation of the revised DLI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The DLI items were revised by the research team using the international literature. DLI data were collected from a representative online non-probability panel of 1202 Australian adults, based on age, gender, and geographical location. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the revised version (DLI-R) was consistent with the original. To develop a short format version of the DLI (DLI-9), items were first removed based on face validity, followed by an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA. The internal reliability of the DLI-R and the DLI-9 was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to examine the inter-rater reliability between the DLI-R and DLI-9.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four questions in the DLI were reworded for clarity. A CFA on the 29 items of this modified version of the DLI indicated a good model fit (Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.93; Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.93; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA): 0.06; standardized root mean residual (SRMR): 0.06), with six latent variables and an underlying latent variable \"death literacy.\" For the DLI-9, an EFA identified a nine-item, two-factor structure model (DLI-9). A subsequent CFA in a separate sample demonstrated a good model fit for the DLI-9 (TLI: 0.92; CFI: 0.94; RMSEA: 0.089; SRMR: 0.07). Excellent inter-rater reliability (0.98) was observed between DLI-9 and DLI-R. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for DLI-R scales and subscales and the DLI-9 all exceeded 0.8, indicating high internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DLI-R and the DLI-9 were found to have acceptable psychometric properties. The development of a shorter version of the DLI provides a valid measure of overall death literacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":36693,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","volume":"18 ","pages":"26323524241274806"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26323524241274806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Since the development of the Death Literacy Index (DLI) in 2019 in Australia, subsequent internationally validated versions have prompted rewording and refinement of the original survey questions. Use of the DLI in the community has also resulted in requests for a short format.

Objectives: To examine and report on the psychometric properties of a revised version of the DLI-R and develop a short format DLI-9.

Design: A cross-sectional national survey was conducted for the validation of the revised DLI.

Methods: The DLI items were revised by the research team using the international literature. DLI data were collected from a representative online non-probability panel of 1202 Australian adults, based on age, gender, and geographical location. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the revised version (DLI-R) was consistent with the original. To develop a short format version of the DLI (DLI-9), items were first removed based on face validity, followed by an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA. The internal reliability of the DLI-R and the DLI-9 was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to examine the inter-rater reliability between the DLI-R and DLI-9.

Results: Twenty-four questions in the DLI were reworded for clarity. A CFA on the 29 items of this modified version of the DLI indicated a good model fit (Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.93; Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.93; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA): 0.06; standardized root mean residual (SRMR): 0.06), with six latent variables and an underlying latent variable "death literacy." For the DLI-9, an EFA identified a nine-item, two-factor structure model (DLI-9). A subsequent CFA in a separate sample demonstrated a good model fit for the DLI-9 (TLI: 0.92; CFI: 0.94; RMSEA: 0.089; SRMR: 0.07). Excellent inter-rater reliability (0.98) was observed between DLI-9 and DLI-R. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for DLI-R scales and subscales and the DLI-9 all exceeded 0.8, indicating high internal consistency.

Conclusion: The DLI-R and the DLI-9 were found to have acceptable psychometric properties. The development of a shorter version of the DLI provides a valid measure of overall death literacy.

推进死亡扫盲指数:开发修订版(DLI-R)和简易版(DLI-9)。
背景:自澳大利亚于 2019 年制定死亡素养指数(DLI)以来,随后经过国际验证的版本促使对原始调查问题进行重新措辞和改进。在社区中使用 DLI 也导致了对简短格式的要求:研究并报告 DLI-R 修订版的心理测量特性,并开发简短格式的 DLI-9:设计:为验证修订版 DLI,开展了一项横断面全国调查:方法:研究小组根据国际文献对 DLI 项目进行了修订。根据年龄、性别和地理位置,从一个具有代表性的在线非概率小组中收集了1202名澳大利亚成年人的DLI数据。为确保修订版(DLI-R)与原版保持一致,进行了确认性因素分析(CFA)。为了开发简短格式的 DLI(DLI-9),首先根据表面效度删除了项目,然后进行了探索性因子分析(EFA)和 CFA。DLI-R 和 DLI-9 的内部信度采用 Cronbach's alpha 进行评估。计算了类内相关系数,以检验 DLI-R 和 DLI-9 之间的评分者间可靠性:为了更加清晰,对 DLI 中的 24 个问题进行了重新措辞。对修改版DLI的29个项目进行的CFA分析表明,模型拟合良好(塔克-刘易斯指数(TLI):0.93;比较拟合指数(CFI):0.93;近似均方根(RMSEA):0.06;标准化均方根残差(SRR):0.06),有六个潜在变量和一个潜在变量 "死亡素养"。对于 DLI-9,EFA 确定了一个由九个项目组成的双因素结构模型(DLI-9)。随后在另一个样本中进行的 CFA 显示,DLI-9 的模型拟合度良好(TLI:0.92;CFI:0.94;RMSEA:0.089;SRMR:0.07)。DLI-9和DLI-R之间的评分者间可靠性极佳(0.98)。DLI-R量表和分量表以及DLI-9的Cronbach's alpha系数均超过0.8,表明其内部一致性很高:结论:DLI-R 和 DLI-9 具有可接受的心理测量特性。DLI-R和DLI-9具有可接受的心理测量学特性,DLI短版的开发为整体死亡素养提供了有效的测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Palliative Care and Social Practice
Palliative Care and Social Practice Nursing-Advanced and Specialized Nursing
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信