OBJECTIVE: The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 22-item measure that assesses patient knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management. The measure was developed using Rasch analyses and is an interval level, unidimensional, Guttman-like measure. The current analysis is aimed at reducing the number of items in the measure while maintaining adequate precision. STUDY METHODS: We relied on an iterative use of Rasch analysis to identify items that could be eliminated without loss of significant precision and reliability. With each item deletion, the item scale locations were recalibrated and the person reliability evaluated to check if and how much of a decline in precision of measurement resulted from the deletion of the item. DATA SOURCES: The data used in the analysis were the same data used in the development of the original 22-item measure. These data were collected in 2003 via a telephone survey of 1,515 randomly selected adults. Principal Findings. The analysis yielded a 13-item measure that has psychometric properties similar to the original 22-item version. The scores for the 13-item measure range in value from 38.6 to 53.0 (on a theoretical 0-100 point scale). The range of values is essentially unchanged from the original 22-item version. Subgroup analysis suggests that there is a slight loss of precision with some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analysis indicate that the shortened 13-item version is both reliable and valid.
OBJECTIVE: The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 22-item measure that assesses patient knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management. The measure was developed using Rasch analyses and is an interval level, unidimensional, Guttman-like measure. The current analysis is aimed at reducing the number of items in the measure while maintaining adequate precision. STUDY METHODS: We relied on an iterative use of Rasch analysis to identify items that could be eliminated without loss of significant precision and reliability. With each item deletion, the item scale locations were recalibrated and the person reliability evaluated to check if and how much of a decline in precision of measurement resulted from the deletion of the item. DATA SOURCES: The data used in the analysis were the same data used in the development of the original 22-item measure. These data were collected in 2003 via a telephone survey of 1,515 randomly selected adults. Principal Findings. The analysis yielded a 13-item measure that has psychometric properties similar to the original 22-item version. The scores for the 13-item measure range in value from 38.6 to 53.0 (on a theoretical 0-100 point scale). The range of values is essentially unchanged from the original 22-item version. Subgroup analysis suggests that there is a slight loss of precision with some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analysis indicate that the shortened 13-item version is both reliable and valid.
Authors: Michael Seid; Elizabeth J D'Amico; James W Varni; Jennifer K Munafo; Maria T Britto; Carolyn M Kercsmar; Dennis Drotar; Eileen C King; Lynn Darbie Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2011-12-13
Authors: Robert Knoerl; Deborah Lee; James Yang; Celia Bridges; Grace Kanzawa-Lee; G Lita Smith; Ellen M Lavoie Smith Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Muin J Khoury; Ralph J Coates; Mary L Fennell; Russell E Glasgow; Maren T Scheuner; Sheri D Schully; Marc S Williams; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2012-05
Authors: Laurie T Martin; Matthias Schonlau; Ann Haas; Kathryn Pitkin Derose; Lindsay Rosenfeld; Stephen L Buka; Rima Rudd Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2011
Authors: David D McManus; Jane S Saczynski; Darleen Lessard; Molly E Waring; Jeroan Allison; David C Parish; Robert J Goldberg; Arlene Ash; Catarina I Kiefe Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Stacey L Schepens Niemiec; Jeanine Blanchard; Cheryl L P Vigen; Jenny Martínez; Laura Guzmán; Alyssa Concha; Michelle Fluke; Mike Carlson Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2018-05-06 Impact factor: 1.458
Authors: S D Dorn; O S Palsson; M Woldeghebriel; B Fowler; R McCoy; M Weinberger; D A Drossman Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Michael Winter; Howard Cabral; Katherine Waite; Lori Henault; Timothy Bickmore; Amresh Hanchate; Michael Wolf; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2016