Alison Woodcock1, Clare Bradley. 1. Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, England, UK. a.woodcock@rhul.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous validation of the HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (HIVTSQs) found that nine of the 10 items performed well, but the demands item needed revision. This study investigated the psychometric properties of the revised HIVTSQs and new change version (HIVTSQc). METHODS: English-speaking Americans completed the HIVTSQs at baseline and Week 48 of a clinical trial of HIV treatments, and the HIVTSQc at Week 48. Demographic and viral load information was collected. Psychometric validation used item frequency distributions, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), item-total correlations, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's rank correlation, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: At baseline, 126 of the 152 patients completed the HIVTSQs fully (100 of 106 at Week 48). The negatively skewed distribution of the revised demands item resembled that of the other nine, with comparable missing data. CFA (baseline and Week 48) supported the general satisfaction/clinical subscale (alpha 0.83; 0.85), lifestyle/ease subscale including demands (alpha 0.82; 0.85), and 10-item treatment satisfaction scale (alpha 0.89; 0.91). Subscale and scale scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. Viral load was not significantly related to subscale or scale scores. At Week 48, 97 of 106 patients completed the HIVTSQc fully. All items had negatively skewed distributions. CFA supported two subscales (general satisfaction/clinical change alpha 0.85; lifestyle/ease change alpha 0.88) and 10-item treatment satisfaction change scale (alpha 0.92). Viral load change between baseline and Week 48 correlated significantly with patients' perceptions of change in HIV control (control(c) item), but not with scale or subscale scores. CONCLUSION: The excellent psychometric properties of the HIVTSQs and HIVTSQc support their use in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES: Previous validation of the HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (HIVTSQs) found that nine of the 10 items performed well, but the demands item needed revision. This study investigated the psychometric properties of the revised HIVTSQs and new change version (HIVTSQc). METHODS: English-speaking Americans completed the HIVTSQs at baseline and Week 48 of a clinical trial of HIV treatments, and the HIVTSQc at Week 48. Demographic and viral load information was collected. Psychometric validation used item frequency distributions, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), item-total correlations, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's rank correlation, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: At baseline, 126 of the 152 patients completed the HIVTSQs fully (100 of 106 at Week 48). The negatively skewed distribution of the revised demands item resembled that of the other nine, with comparable missing data. CFA (baseline and Week 48) supported the general satisfaction/clinical subscale (alpha 0.83; 0.85), lifestyle/ease subscale including demands (alpha 0.82; 0.85), and 10-item treatment satisfaction scale (alpha 0.89; 0.91). Subscale and scale scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. Viral load was not significantly related to subscale or scale scores. At Week 48, 97 of 106 patients completed the HIVTSQc fully. All items had negatively skewed distributions. CFA supported two subscales (general satisfaction/clinical change alpha 0.85; lifestyle/ease change alpha 0.88) and 10-item treatment satisfaction change scale (alpha 0.92). Viral load change between baseline and Week 48 correlated significantly with patients' perceptions of change in HIV control (control(c) item), but not with scale or subscale scores. CONCLUSION: The excellent psychometric properties of the HIVTSQs and HIVTSQc support their use in clinical trials.
Authors: Anthony Mills; Will Garner; Anton Pozniak; Juan Berenguer; Rebecca M Speck; Randall Bender; Thai Nguyen Journal: Patient Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Jason Brunetta; Santiago Moreno Guillén; Andrea Antinori; Patrick Yeni; Barbara Wade; Margaret Johnson; Peter Shalit; Ramin Ebrahimi; Bethsheba Johnson; Ivan Walker; Shampa De-Oertel Journal: Patient Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Gregory D Huhn; Gordon Crofoot; Moti Ramgopal; Joseph Gathe; Robert Bolan; Donghan Luo; Richard Bruce Simonson; Richard E Nettles; Carmela Benson; Keith Dunn Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Joseph Gathe; Jose R Arribas; Jan Van Lunzen; Will Garner; Rebecca M Speck; Randall Bender; Sanatan Shreay; Thai Nguyen Journal: Patient Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Andrea Antinori; Maria V Cossu; Barbara Menzaghi; Gaetana Sterrantino; Nicola Squillace; Valentina Di Cristo; Annamaria Cattelan; Emanuele Focà; Antonella Castagna; Giancarlo Orofino; Daniela Valenti; Gabriella D'Ettore; Lucia Aprea; Sergio Ferrara; Maria E Locatelli; Giordano Madeddu; Emanuele Pontali; Paolo Scerbo; Barbara Rossetti; Alessia Uglietti; Roberta Termini; Francesco Rucci; Andrea Gori; Daniela Mancusi Journal: Patient Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.883