脑卒中幸存者参与与自主问卷(IPA)的信度与效度。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
International Journal of General Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/IJGM.S506798
Ya-Nan He, Xiao-Huan Qin, Jian-Hong Lv, Yan-Ping Guo
{"title":"脑卒中幸存者参与与自主问卷(IPA)的信度与效度。","authors":"Ya-Nan He, Xiao-Huan Qin, Jian-Hong Lv, Yan-Ping Guo","doi":"10.2147/IJGM.S506798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire (IPA-C) for people with stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The English version of the IPA (IPA-E) was translated into the Chinese version using the protocol for linguistic validation of patient-reported outcome instruments. In total, 421 patients diagnosed with first-ever stroke participated in this study. A cross-sectional study with a test-retest subsample was conducted. Three reliability evaluation methods were used to assess the reliability of IPA-C. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated by calculating the Cronbach's alpha and split-half reliability. Split-half reliability was recorded using the Guttman split-half coefficient. Item reliability was assessed using test-retest reliability. Validity content and construct validity were used to assess the IPA-C validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IPA-E consists of five domains: autonomy indoors, family role, autonomy outdoors, social life and relationships, and work and education opportunities. In this study, the domain 'work and educational opportunities' and the item 'My chances of having an intimate relationship are' were excluded from the analysis. Because they were not applicable to most participants. So, the first part (IPA-C-I), contained 25 items across 4 subscales (Autonomy Indoors, Family Role, Autonomy Outdoors, Social Life and Relationships). The second part (IPA-C-II), the experience of problems, contains further 7 questions, which are 7 domains (mobility, self-care, activities, economic management, leisure, social life and relationships, and helping others). The Cronbach's alphas of the IPA-C-I was 0.962, IPA-C-II was 0.823, and 0.968 (autonomy indoors), 0.966 (Family role), 0.870 (Autonomy outdoors), 0.913 (Social life and relationships). The Guttman Split-Half Coefficient of the IPA-C-I was 0.792. Item reliabilities estimated from the test-retest ranged from 0.915 to 0.975. The overall content validity index was 0.949. Four factors emerged from the 25 items, accounting for 82.918% of the variance with item loadings above 0.40.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IPA-C can be considered a valid and reliable instrument for assessing participation and autonomy in patients with stroke. Later, researchers could choose IPA-C as a good tool to evaluate perceived participation and problems in stroke patients. However, in patients with a variety of diagnoses and other cultural backgrounds, further assessment of psychometric properties is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":14131,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of General Medicine","volume":"18 ","pages":"1721-1729"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955180/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire (IPA): Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version for Stroke Survivors.\",\"authors\":\"Ya-Nan He, Xiao-Huan Qin, Jian-Hong Lv, Yan-Ping Guo\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/IJGM.S506798\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire (IPA-C) for people with stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The English version of the IPA (IPA-E) was translated into the Chinese version using the protocol for linguistic validation of patient-reported outcome instruments. In total, 421 patients diagnosed with first-ever stroke participated in this study. A cross-sectional study with a test-retest subsample was conducted. Three reliability evaluation methods were used to assess the reliability of IPA-C. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated by calculating the Cronbach's alpha and split-half reliability. Split-half reliability was recorded using the Guttman split-half coefficient. Item reliability was assessed using test-retest reliability. Validity content and construct validity were used to assess the IPA-C validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IPA-E consists of five domains: autonomy indoors, family role, autonomy outdoors, social life and relationships, and work and education opportunities. In this study, the domain 'work and educational opportunities' and the item 'My chances of having an intimate relationship are' were excluded from the analysis. Because they were not applicable to most participants. So, the first part (IPA-C-I), contained 25 items across 4 subscales (Autonomy Indoors, Family Role, Autonomy Outdoors, Social Life and Relationships). The second part (IPA-C-II), the experience of problems, contains further 7 questions, which are 7 domains (mobility, self-care, activities, economic management, leisure, social life and relationships, and helping others). The Cronbach's alphas of the IPA-C-I was 0.962, IPA-C-II was 0.823, and 0.968 (autonomy indoors), 0.966 (Family role), 0.870 (Autonomy outdoors), 0.913 (Social life and relationships). The Guttman Split-Half Coefficient of the IPA-C-I was 0.792. Item reliabilities estimated from the test-retest ranged from 0.915 to 0.975. The overall content validity index was 0.949. Four factors emerged from the 25 items, accounting for 82.918% of the variance with item loadings above 0.40.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IPA-C can be considered a valid and reliable instrument for assessing participation and autonomy in patients with stroke. Later, researchers could choose IPA-C as a good tool to evaluate perceived participation and problems in stroke patients. However, in patients with a variety of diagnoses and other cultural backgrounds, further assessment of psychometric properties is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of General Medicine\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"1721-1729\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955180/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of General Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S506798\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S506798","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估脑卒中患者参与与自主性影响问卷(IPA-C)的信度和效度。方法:将IPA (IPA- e)的英文版本翻译成中文版本,使用该协议对患者报告的结果工具进行语言验证。总共有421名首次被诊断为中风的患者参与了这项研究。横断面研究与测试-重测试子样本进行。采用三种可靠性评估方法对IPA-C的可靠性进行了评估。通过计算Cronbach's alpha和split-half信度来评估内部一致性信度。用Guttman劈开-二分系数记录劈开-二分信度。项目信度采用重测信度评估。采用效度内容和构念效度评估IPA-C效度。结果:IPA-E包括五个领域:室内自主性、家庭角色自主性、室外自主性、社会生活和人际关系、工作和教育机会。在这项研究中,“工作和教育机会”领域和“我拥有亲密关系的机会是”项目被排除在分析之外。因为它们并不适用于大多数参与者。因此,第一部分(IPA-C-I)包含25个项目,跨越4个子量表(室内自主性,家庭角色,户外自主性,社会生活和关系)。第二部分(IPA-C-II),问题的经验,包含另外7个问题,分别是7个领域(流动性,自我护理,活动,经济管理,休闲,社会生活和关系,以及帮助他人)。IPA-C-I的Cronbach's alpha为0.962,IPA-C-II的Cronbach's alpha为0.823,室内自主性为0.968,家庭角色为0.966,室外自主性为0.870,社会生活与关系为0.913。IPA-C-I的Guttman分半系数为0.792。从重测估计的项目信度范围为0.915至0.975。总体内容效度指数为0.949。25个项目中出现了4个因素,占项目负荷高于0.40的方差的82.918%。结论:IPA-C可被认为是评估脑卒中患者参与和自主性的有效和可靠的工具。随后,研究人员可以选择IPA-C作为评估脑卒中患者感知参与和问题的良好工具。然而,对于具有多种诊断和其他文化背景的患者,需要进一步评估心理测量特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire (IPA): Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version for Stroke Survivors.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire (IPA-C) for people with stroke.

Methods: The English version of the IPA (IPA-E) was translated into the Chinese version using the protocol for linguistic validation of patient-reported outcome instruments. In total, 421 patients diagnosed with first-ever stroke participated in this study. A cross-sectional study with a test-retest subsample was conducted. Three reliability evaluation methods were used to assess the reliability of IPA-C. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated by calculating the Cronbach's alpha and split-half reliability. Split-half reliability was recorded using the Guttman split-half coefficient. Item reliability was assessed using test-retest reliability. Validity content and construct validity were used to assess the IPA-C validity.

Results: IPA-E consists of five domains: autonomy indoors, family role, autonomy outdoors, social life and relationships, and work and education opportunities. In this study, the domain 'work and educational opportunities' and the item 'My chances of having an intimate relationship are' were excluded from the analysis. Because they were not applicable to most participants. So, the first part (IPA-C-I), contained 25 items across 4 subscales (Autonomy Indoors, Family Role, Autonomy Outdoors, Social Life and Relationships). The second part (IPA-C-II), the experience of problems, contains further 7 questions, which are 7 domains (mobility, self-care, activities, economic management, leisure, social life and relationships, and helping others). The Cronbach's alphas of the IPA-C-I was 0.962, IPA-C-II was 0.823, and 0.968 (autonomy indoors), 0.966 (Family role), 0.870 (Autonomy outdoors), 0.913 (Social life and relationships). The Guttman Split-Half Coefficient of the IPA-C-I was 0.792. Item reliabilities estimated from the test-retest ranged from 0.915 to 0.975. The overall content validity index was 0.949. Four factors emerged from the 25 items, accounting for 82.918% of the variance with item loadings above 0.40.

Conclusion: The IPA-C can be considered a valid and reliable instrument for assessing participation and autonomy in patients with stroke. Later, researchers could choose IPA-C as a good tool to evaluate perceived participation and problems in stroke patients. However, in patients with a variety of diagnoses and other cultural backgrounds, further assessment of psychometric properties is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of General Medicine
International Journal of General Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1113
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of General Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on general and internal medicine, pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment protocols. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research and clinical studies across all disease areas. A key focus of the journal is the elucidation of disease processes and management protocols resulting in improved outcomes for the patient. Patient perspectives such as satisfaction, quality of life, health literacy and communication and their role in developing new healthcare programs and optimizing clinical outcomes are major areas of interest for the journal. As of 1st April 2019, the International Journal of General Medicine will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
×
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