Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Self-Care Self-Efficacy Scale for Patients With Heart Failure: A Psychometric Evaluation

IF 2 4区医学 Q2 NURSING

International Journal of Nursing Practice Pub Date : 2025-08-31 DOI:10.1111/ijn.70045

JinShil Kim, Minjeong An

{"title":"Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Self-Care Self-Efficacy Scale for Patients With Heart Failure: A Psychometric Evaluation","authors":"JinShil Kim, Minjeong An","doi":"10.1111/ijn.70045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The psychometric properties of the 10-item Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale have not yet been established in the Korean language. This study aimed to evaluate its validity and reliability among Korean patients with heart failure (HF).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 159 patients with HF participated (mean age: 65.40 ± 9.62 years; 60.1% male). Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion validity was examined by assessing the correlation of self-efficacy with HF symptom status and physical function and by comparing self-efficacy levels across the New York Heart Association classes. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega and factor determinacy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Confirmatory factor analysis fit indices were as follows: comparative fit index = 0.977, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.966, standardised root mean square residual = 0.041 and root mean square error of approximation = 0.065 (90% CI = 0.038–0.090). Criterion validity was supported by significant correlations between self-efficacy and symptom status (<i>r</i> = −0.331, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and physical function (<i>r</i> = 0.299, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Self-efficacy scores were significantly higher in patients with lower New York Heart Association class (I/II) than higher class (III or IV) (<i>F</i> = 4.68, <i>p</i> = 0.011). Reliability estimates were robust: Cronbach's <i>α</i> = 0.913, McDonald's omega = 0.902 and factor determinacy = 0.941.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study supports the validity and reliability of the Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale in Korean for assessing self-care self-efficacy among patients with HF. Clinicians should consider evaluating and enhancing patients' self-care self-efficacy to effectively manage HF symptoms, especially considering functional severity.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14223,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijn.70045","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijn.70045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

The psychometric properties of the 10-item Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale have not yet been established in the Korean language. This study aimed to evaluate its validity and reliability among Korean patients with heart failure (HF).

Methods

A total of 159 patients with HF participated (mean age: 65.40 ± 9.62 years; 60.1% male). Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion validity was examined by assessing the correlation of self-efficacy with HF symptom status and physical function and by comparing self-efficacy levels across the New York Heart Association classes. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega and factor determinacy.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis fit indices were as follows: comparative fit index = 0.977, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.966, standardised root mean square residual = 0.041 and root mean square error of approximation = 0.065 (90% CI = 0.038–0.090). Criterion validity was supported by significant correlations between self-efficacy and symptom status (r = −0.331, p < 0.001) and physical function (r = 0.299, p < 0.001). Self-efficacy scores were significantly higher in patients with lower New York Heart Association class (I/II) than higher class (III or IV) (F = 4.68, p = 0.011). Reliability estimates were robust: Cronbach's α = 0.913, McDonald's omega = 0.902 and factor determinacy = 0.941.

Conclusion

This study supports the validity and reliability of the Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale in Korean for assessing self-care self-efficacy among patients with HF. Clinicians should consider evaluating and enhancing patients' self-care self-efficacy to effectively manage HF symptoms, especially considering functional severity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

韩文心力衰竭患者自我照顾效能感量表的效度与信度：一项心理测量评估

目的10项自我照顾自我效能感量表的心理测量性质尚未建立。本研究旨在评估其在韩国心力衰竭（HF）患者中的效度和可靠性。方法159例HF患者（平均年龄65.40±9.62岁，男性占60.1%）参与研究。建构效度评估采用验证性因子分析。通过评估自我效能与心衰症状状态和身体功能的相关性，并通过比较纽约心脏协会各班级的自我效能水平来检验标准效度。采用Cronbach's alpha、McDonald's omega和因子确定性评估信度。结果验证性因子分析拟合指标为：比较拟合指数= 0.977，Tucker-Lewis指数= 0.966，标准化均方根残差= 0.041，近似均方根误差= 0.065 （90% CI = 0.038 ~ 0.090）。自我效能感与症状状态（r = - 0.331, p < 0.001）和身体机能（r = 0.299, p < 0.001）之间存在显著相关性，支持了标准效度。纽约心脏协会分级（I/II）较低的患者自我效能评分明显高于分级（III或IV）的患者（F = 4.68, p = 0.011）。信度估计是稳健的：Cronbach's α = 0.913, McDonald's ω = 0.902，因子确定性= 0.941。结论韩文自我保健效能量表用于评估心衰患者自我保健效能的信度和效度。临床医生应考虑评估和提高患者的自我保健自我效能感，以有效地管理心衰症状，特别是考虑功能严重程度。

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

International Journal of Nursing Practice NURSING-

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： International Journal of Nursing Practice is a fully refereed journal that publishes original scholarly work that advances the international understanding and development of nursing, both as a profession and as an academic discipline. The Journal focuses on research papers and professional discussion papers that have a sound scientific, theoretical or philosophical base. Preference is given to high-quality papers written in a way that renders them accessible to a wide audience without compromising quality. The primary criteria for acceptance are excellence, relevance and clarity. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.