Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 9/2019

28.05.2019

Calibration and initial validation of a general self-efficacy item bank and short form for the NIH PROMIS®

verfasst von: John M. Salsman, Benjamin D. Schalet, Thomas V. Merluzzi, Crystal L. Park, Elizabeth A. Hahn, Mallory A. Snyder, David Cella

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Aims

General self-efficacy is associated with adaptive coping and positive health outcomes. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) has developed self-efficacy item banks for managing chronic conditions, but lacks a general self-efficacy measure. We sought to refine and validate an item-response theory (IRT)-based measure of general self-efficacy for PROMIS®.

Methods

Ten items were modified from the NIH Toolbox® Self-Efficacy Item Bank by creating “confidence” response options, and administered to a general population sample (n = 1000) with the Toolbox® Self-Efficacy Item Bank, Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R), and Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale (GESS). We split the sample in half for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). IRT analyses included evaluation of differential item functioning (DIF).

Results

Participants had a mean age of 47.8 years and 50.3% were male. EFA showed all items loaded onto one dominant factor and CFA yielded a good fitting model for a general self-efficacy bank with confidence response options (CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.984, RMSEA = 0.090). Items showed no evidence of DIF by gender, age, education, or race. Internal consistency reliability was α = .94 and .88 for a new 10-item general self-efficacy bank and 4-item short form, respectively. The new bank was correlated with the LOT-R (r = .58), the GESS (r = .55), and the Toolbox® Self-Efficacy Item Bank (r = .87).

Conclusions

The PROMIS® General Self-Efficacy measure demonstrated sufficient unidimensionality and displayed good internal consistency reliability, model fit, and convergent validity. Further psychometric testing of the PROMIS® General Self-Efficacy Item Bank and Short Form can evaluate its utility in people with chronic health conditions.
Vorheriger Artikel Methods for questionnaire design: a taxonomy linking procedures to test goals
Nächster Artikel Cutoff of the Zarit Burden Interview in predicting depression and anxiety

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
2.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (1981). Attention and self-regulation. New York: Springer.CrossRef
4.
Rahman, A., et al. (2008). Factors affecting self-efficacy and pain intensity in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain seen in a specialist rheumatology pain clinic. Rheumatology, 47(12), 1803–1808.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Schwerdtfeger, A., Konermann, L., & Schönhofen, K. (2008). Self-efficacy as a health-protective resource in teachers? A biopsychological approach. Health Psychology, 27(3), 358–368.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Jones, F., Partridge, C., & Reid, F. (2008). The Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: Measuring individual confidence in functional performance after stroke. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(7b), 244–252.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Merluzzi, T. V., et al. (2001). Self-efficacy for coping with cancer: Revision of the Cancer Behavior Inventory (version 2.0). Psychooncology, 10(3), 206–217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Merluzzi, T. V., et al. (2018). Self-efficacy for coping with cancer: Revision of the Cancer Behavior Inventory (Version 3.0). Psychol Assessment, 30(4), 486–499.CrossRef
9.
Sheeran, P., et al. (2016). The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 35(11), 1178–1188.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology (pp. 35–37). Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
11.
Schwarzer, R., & Warner, L. M. (2013) Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience. In Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 139–150). New York: Springer.
12.
Courneya, K. S., et al. (2012). Effects of supervised exercise on motivational outcomes and longer-term behavior. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44(3), 542–549.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Demark-Wahnefried, W., et al. (2003). Design of FRESH START: A randomized trial of exercise and diet among cancer survivors. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(3), 415–424.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Chesney, M. A., et al. (2006). A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11(Pt 3), 421–437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Lorig, K. R., et al. (2001). Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(6), 256–262.PubMed
16.
Cella, D., et al. (2010). Initial adult health item banks and first wave testing of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS™) Network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Cella, D., et al. (2016). PROMIS fatigue item bank had clinical validity across diverse chronic conditions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 128–134.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Cook, K. F., et al. (2016). PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 89–102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
20.
Kupst, M. J., et al. (2015). Assessment of stress and self-efficacy for the NIH Toolbox for Neurological and Behavioral Function. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 28(5), 531–544.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
24.
25.
Roster, C. A., et al. (2004). A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 46(3), 359–374.CrossRef
26.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Fung, H. H., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Motivational changes in response to blocked goals and foreshortened time: Testing alternatives to socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 19(1), 68–78.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hale, W. D., Fiedler, L. R., & Cochran, C. D. (1992). The revised Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale: A validity and reliability study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(4), 517–521.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Hays, R. D., et al. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Pilkonis, P. A., et al. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Reeve, B. B., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22(1), 53–61.CrossRef
35.
Reise, S. P., et al. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26.CrossRef
36.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika monograph supplement, no. 17. Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society.
37.
Li, C., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. (2011). IRTPRO 2.1 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
38.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further examination of the performance of S-X2, an item fit index for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289–298.CrossRef
39.
Kang, T., & Chen, T. T. (2011). Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for the graded response model. Asia–Pacific Education Review, 12(1), 89–96.CrossRef
40.
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). LORDIF: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Choi, S. W., et al. (2014). Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 513–527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83.CrossRef
43.
Sherer, M., et al. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671.CrossRef
44.
Babakhanyan, I., et al. (2018). National Institutes of Health Toolbox Emotion Battery for English- and Spanish-speaking adults: Normative data and factor-based summary scores. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 9, 115–127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Kostka, T., & Jachimowicz, V. (2010). Relationship of quality of life to dispositional optimism, health locus of control and self-efficacy in older subjects living in different environments. Quality of Life Research, 19(3), 351–361.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(5), 539–551.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Bonsaksen, T., et al. (2018). Self-diagnosed depression in the Norwegian general population—Associations with neuroticism, extraversion, optimism, and general self-efficacy. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1076.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Hajek, A., & Hans Helmut, K. (2017). The role of self-efficacy, self-esteem and optimism for using routine health check-ups in a population-based sample. A longitudinal perspective. Preventive Medicine, 105, 47–51.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Schwarzer, R., et al. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general self-efficacy scale. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 69–88.CrossRef
50.
Scholz, U., et al. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242.CrossRef
51.
Roddenberry, A., & Renk, K. (2010). Locus of control and self-efficacy: Potential mediators of stress, illness, and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(4), 353–370.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Kobasa, S. C. (1982). The hardy personality: Toward a social psychology of stress and health. Social Psychology of Health and Illness, 4, 3–32.
54.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Cella, D., et al. (2014). Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 23(10), 2651–2661.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Calibration and initial validation of a general self-efficacy item bank and short form for the NIH PROMIS®
verfasst von
John M. Salsman
Benjamin D. Schalet
Thomas V. Merluzzi
Crystal L. Park
Elizabeth A. Hahn
Mallory A. Snyder
David Cella
Publikationsdatum
28.05.2019
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02198-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2019

Quality of Life Research 9/2019 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Socioeconomic inequalities in oral health-related quality of life in adolescents: a cohort study

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life in adult males with lower urinary tract symptoms

OriginalPaper

Mapping the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire onto the Child Health Utility 9D in a large study of children

OriginalPaper

Response shift effects in patients’ assessments of their quality of life after cardiac rehabilitation

OriginalPaper

Process utilities for topical treatment in atopic dermatitis

OriginalPaper

Health state utilities associated with attributes of migraine preventive treatments based on patient and general population preferences

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise