nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.08.2014

Development and psychometric properties of the Maastricht Personal Autonomy Questionnaire (MPAQ) in older adults with a chronic physical illness

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 6/2014

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

To develop and test the Maastricht Personal Autonomy Questionnaire (MPAQ), an instrument measuring personal autonomy of older adults with a chronic physical illness in accordance with their experience of autonomy. Achievement of personal autonomy is conceptualized as correspondence between the way people’s lives are actually arranged and the way people want to arrange their lives.

Methods

A field test was conducted in three waves (n = 412, n = 125 and n = 244) among a random sample of people older than 59 years with either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes mellitus. Construct validity, reproducibility and responsiveness were evaluated.

Results

The MPAQ entailing 16 items consists of three scales: degree of (personal) autonomy, working on autonomy and dilemmas. Construct validity was largely supported by confirmatory factor analysis and correlations between the MPAQ and other instruments. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.61 to 0.80 and SRDs_group from 0.10 to 0.13. Mean change was larger (0.54) than was SRD_group (0.11) in patients who had deteriorated, but smaller in patients who had improved (0.07).

Conclusions

The MPAQ has good content and construct validity and moderate reproducibility. Responsiveness is weak, although better for deterioration than for improvement.

Vorheriger Artikel Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank

Nächster Artikel The Italian version of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability and validity

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

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Michie, S., Miles, J., & Weinman, J. (2003). Patient-centredness in chronic illness: What is it and does it matter? Patient Education and Counseling, 51, 197–206.PubMedCrossRef

Cardol, M., De Haan, R. J., de Jong, B. A., Van den Bos, G. A. M., & De Groot, I. J. M. (2001). Psychometric properties of the ‘impact on participation and autonomy’ (IPA) questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(2), 210–216.PubMedCrossRef

Clark, D. A., Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., & Ross, L. (1995). Psychometric characteristics of revised sociotropy and autonomy Scales in college students. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 325–334.PubMedCrossRef

Bekker, M. H. (1993). The development of an autonomy scale based on recent insights into gender identity. European Journal of Personality, 7, 177–194.CrossRef

Anderson, R. A., Worthington, L., Anderson, W. T., & Jennings, G. (1994). The development of an autonomy scale. Contemporary Family Therapy, 16, 329–345.CrossRef

Mars, G. M. J., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Widdershoven, G. A. M., Janssen, P. P. M., & Van Eijk, J. T. M. (2008). Conceptualizing autonomy in the context of chronic physical illness: Relating philosophical theories to social scientific perspectives. Health, 12, 333–348.PubMed

Mars, G. M. J., Proot, I. M., Janssen, P. P. M., Van Eijk, J. T. M., & Kempen, G. I. J. M. (2007). How do people with COPD or diabetes type 2 experience autonomy? An exploratory study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 485–493.PubMedCrossRef

Williams, G. H., & Wood, P. H. N. (1988). Coming to terms with chronic illness: The negotiation of autonomy in rheumatoid arthritis. International Disability Studies, 10(3), 128–133.PubMedCrossRef

Townsend, A., Wyke, S., & Hunt, K. (2006). Self-managing and managing self: Practical and moral dilemmas in accounts of living with chronic illness. Chronic Illness, 2, 185–194.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hunt, M. R., & Ells, C. (2011). Partners towards autonomy: Risky choices and relational autonomy in rehabilitation care. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 961–967.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Van Eijk, J. T. M., & De Haan, M. (1998). Care for the chronically ill: The future role of health care professionals and their patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 233–240.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Mars, G. M. J., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Post, M. W. M., Proot, I. M., Mesters, I., & Van Eijk, J. T. M. (2009). The Maastricht social participation profile: Development and clinimetric properties in older adults with a chronic physical illness. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1207–1218.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Lessler, J. T., & Forsyth, B. H. (1996). A coding system for appraising questionnaires. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 259–291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

14.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences no. 07–017). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Esposito, J. L., & Rothgeb, J. M. (1997). Evaluating survey data: Making the transition from pretesting to quality assessment. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 541–571). New York: Wiley.

16.

Kurz, K., Prüfer, P., & Rexroth, M. (1999). Zur Validität von Fragen in standardisierten Erhebungen. Ergebnisse des Einsatzes eines kognitiven Pretestinterviews (On the validity of questions in standardised surveys. Results of a cognitive pretest interview). ZUMA-Nachrichten, 44(23), 83–107.

17.

SPSS for Windows, Rel. 12.0.1. (2003). Chicago: SPSS Inc.

18.

Lamers, F., Jonkers, C. C., Bosma, H., Diederiks, J. P., & Van Eijk, J. T. M. (2006). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychological intervention to reduce non-severe depression in chronically ill elderly patients: The design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN92331982]. BMC Public Health, 6, 161.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Van der Zee, K. I., & Sanderman, R. (1993). Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36: Een handleiding [Measuring general health with the RAND-36: A manual]. Groningen: Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken.

21.

Cardol, M., Beelen, A., Van den Bos, G. A., De Jong, B. A., De Groot, I. J., & De Haan, R. J. (2002). Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1524–1529.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.CrossRef

24.

Bosscher, R. J., & Smit, J. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the general self-efficacy scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 339–343.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Bosscher, R. J., Smit, J. H., & Kempen, G. I. J. M. (1997). Algemene competentieverwachtingen bij ouderen: Een onderzoek naar de psychometrische kenmerken van de Algemene Competentieschaal (ALCOS) (General self-efficacy expectancies in the elderly: A study about the psychometric properties of the General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 52, 239–248.

26.

Schreurs, P. J. G., Van de Willige, G., Brosschot, J. F., Tellegen, B., & Graus, G. M. H. (1993). De Utrechtse Coping Lijst: UCL; herziene handleiding [The Utrecht Coping List: UCL-Manual]. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

27.

Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.

28.

LISREL 8.3. (1999). Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

29.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

30.

Faulbaum, F. (1981). Konfirmatorische Analysen der Reliabilität von Wichtigkeitseinstufungen beruflicher Merkmale. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 9, 22–44.

31.

Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.CrossRef

32.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., De Boer, M. R., Van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Nichols, D. P. (1998). Choosing an intraclass correlation coefficient. SPSS Keywords, 67.

35.

De Vet, H. C., Bouter, L. M., Bezemer, P. D., & Beurskens, A. J. (2001). Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures: Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 17, 479–487.PubMed

36.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999). Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 135–160.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Drummond, N., & Mason, C. (1990). Diabetes in a social context: Just a different way of life in the Age of Reason. In S. Cunningham-Burley & N. McKeganey (Eds.), Readings in medical sociology (pp. 37–54). London: Routledge.

38.

Adams, S., Pill, R., & Jones, A. (1997). Medication, chronic illness and identity: The perspective of people with asthma. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 189–201.PubMedCrossRef

39.

McCoach, D., & Anderson, J. (2010). Dealing with dependence (part I): Understanding the effects of clustered data. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 152–155.CrossRef

Titel: Development and psychometric properties of the Maastricht Personal Autonomy Questionnaire (MPAQ) in older adults with a chronic physical illness
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2014
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0619-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2014

The ethics of providing a balanced presentation of facts

Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank

An investigation into the construct validity of the Carer Experience Scale (CES)

Anchoring vignettes for health comparisons: an analysis of response consistency

Impact of autism in adolescents on parental quality of life

Conceptualizing and prioritizing clinical trial outcomes from the perspectives of people with Parkinson’s disease versus health care professionals: a concept mapping study