Construct Validity of the Measurement Tools PH42 and I.ROC12 to Measure Positive Health in a General Population.

IF 1.6 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2025-07-31 DOI:10.1007/s10728-025-00533-2

Vera P van Druten, Lenny M W Nahar-van Venrooij, Bea G Tiemens, Dike van de Mheen, Esther de Vries, Margot J Metz

{"title":"Construct Validity of the Measurement Tools PH42 and I.ROC12 to Measure Positive Health in a General Population.","authors":"Vera P van Druten, Lenny M W Nahar-van Venrooij, Bea G Tiemens, Dike van de Mheen, Esther de Vries, Margot J Metz","doi":"10.1007/s10728-025-00533-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>'Positive Health' and 'recovery' seem to cover similar multidimensional health perspectives focussing on capabilities instead of incapabilities. The My Positive Health questionnaire and Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter were initially developed as dialogue tools, but nowadays also used as self-reported questionnaires. Structural validity of these dialogue tools was assessed in earlier research resulting in the 42-items Positive Health questionnaire (PH42) and 12-items Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC12). As a next step, we investigated their construct validity. An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in a representative general Dutch population (LISS-panel) determining (1) Coherence between the PH42 and I.ROC12 using correlation coefficients; (2) Convergent validity by testing hypotheses for PH42 and I.ROC12 with external health-related questions using correlation coefficients; (3) Discriminative validity for subgroups gender, age, educational level and healthcare use. (1) Nine out of twelve correlations between PH42 and I.ROC12 factors were substantial (> 0.5). (2) Hypotheses for PH42 and I.ROC12 factors with health-related questions were confirmed for 80% and 75%, respectively. (3) Scores on all factors increased (i.e., better health) from low to high educational level and decreased from no healthcare use to healthcare received from (medical) specialists. Only the factor physical health and functioning showed a continuous decrease in scores with increasing age. Women scored lower only on physical health and functioning. Convergent validity is adequate and discriminative validity is adequate for educational level and healthcare use supporting the conclusion that the PH42 and I.ROC12 are useful instruments to measure Positive Health in a general population.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-025-00533-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

'Positive Health' and 'recovery' seem to cover similar multidimensional health perspectives focussing on capabilities instead of incapabilities. The My Positive Health questionnaire and Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter were initially developed as dialogue tools, but nowadays also used as self-reported questionnaires. Structural validity of these dialogue tools was assessed in earlier research resulting in the 42-items Positive Health questionnaire (PH42) and 12-items Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC12). As a next step, we investigated their construct validity. An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in a representative general Dutch population (LISS-panel) determining (1) Coherence between the PH42 and I.ROC12 using correlation coefficients; (2) Convergent validity by testing hypotheses for PH42 and I.ROC12 with external health-related questions using correlation coefficients; (3) Discriminative validity for subgroups gender, age, educational level and healthcare use. (1) Nine out of twelve correlations between PH42 and I.ROC12 factors were substantial (> 0.5). (2) Hypotheses for PH42 and I.ROC12 factors with health-related questions were confirmed for 80% and 75%, respectively. (3) Scores on all factors increased (i.e., better health) from low to high educational level and decreased from no healthcare use to healthcare received from (medical) specialists. Only the factor physical health and functioning showed a continuous decrease in scores with increasing age. Women scored lower only on physical health and functioning. Convergent validity is adequate and discriminative validity is adequate for educational level and healthcare use supporting the conclusion that the PH42 and I.ROC12 are useful instruments to measure Positive Health in a general population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

测量工具PH42和I.ROC12在一般人群中测量积极健康的构造效度。

“积极健康”和“康复”似乎涵盖了类似的多维健康视角，侧重于能力而不是无能。“我的积极健康问卷”和“个人康复结果计数器”最初是作为对话工具开发的，但现在也用作自我报告的问卷。这些对话工具的结构有效性在早期的研究中进行了评估，产生了42项“积极健康问卷”（PH42）和12项“个人康复结果计数器”（I.ROC12）。下一步，我们调查了它们的构念效度。在具有代表性的荷兰普通人群（lss -panel）中进行了一项观察性横断面研究(1)使用相关系数确定PH42和I.ROC12之间的一致性；(2)采用相关系数检验PH42和I.ROC12与外部健康相关问题的假设的收敛效度；(3)性别、年龄、受教育程度和医疗保健使用亚组的判别效度。(1) 12个因子中有9个与I.ROC12的相关性显著（>.5）。(2) PH42和I.ROC12因子与健康相关的假设分别为80%和75%。(3)所有因素的得分从低教育水平到高教育水平都增加（即健康状况更好），从没有医疗保健到接受（医学）专家的医疗保健都下降。随着年龄的增长，只有身体健康和功能因素的得分持续下降。女性仅在身体健康和功能方面得分较低。在教育水平和医疗保健使用方面，趋同效度和区别效度是足够的，这支持了PH42和I.ROC12是衡量一般人群积极健康的有用工具的结论。

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

Health Care Analysis Multiple-

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.