BACKGROUND: The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) is a measure of self-care defined as a naturalistic decision-making process involving the choice of behaviors that maintain physiological stability (maintenance) and the response to symptoms when they occur (management). In the 5 years since the SCHFI was published, we have added items, refined the response format of the maintenance scale and the SCHFI scoring procedure, and modified our advice about how to use the scores. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to update users on these changes. METHODS: In this article, we address 8 specific questions about reliability, item difficulty, frequency of administration, learning effects, social desirability, validity, judgments of self-care adequacy, clinically relevant change, and comparability of the various versions. RESULTS: The addition of items to the self-care maintenance scale did not significantly change the coefficient alpha, providing evidence that the structure of the instrument is more powerful than the individual items. No learning effect is associated with repeated administration. Social desirability is minimal. More evidence is provided of the validity of the SCHFI. A score of 70 or greater can be used as the cut-point to judge self-care adequacy, although evidence is provided that benefit occurs at even lower levels of self-care. A change in a scale score more than one-half of an SD is considered clinically relevant. Because of the standardized scores, results obtained with prior versions can be compared with those from later versions. CONCLUSION: The SCHFI v.6 is ready to be used by investigators. By publication in this format, we are putting the instrument in the public domain; permission is not required to use the SCHFI.
BACKGROUND: The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) is a measure of self-care defined as a naturalistic decision-making process involving the choice of behaviors that maintain physiological stability (maintenance) and the response to symptoms when they occur (management). In the 5 years since the SCHFI was published, we have added items, refined the response format of the maintenance scale and the SCHFI scoring procedure, and modified our advice about how to use the scores. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to update users on these changes. METHODS: In this article, we address 8 specific questions about reliability, item difficulty, frequency of administration, learning effects, social desirability, validity, judgments of self-care adequacy, clinically relevant change, and comparability of the various versions. RESULTS: The addition of items to the self-care maintenance scale did not significantly change the coefficient alpha, providing evidence that the structure of the instrument is more powerful than the individual items. No learning effect is associated with repeated administration. Social desirability is minimal. More evidence is provided of the validity of the SCHFI. A score of 70 or greater can be used as the cut-point to judge self-care adequacy, although evidence is provided that benefit occurs at even lower levels of self-care. A change in a scale score more than one-half of an SD is considered clinically relevant. Because of the standardized scores, results obtained with prior versions can be compared with those from later versions. CONCLUSION: The SCHFI v.6 is ready to be used by investigators. By publication in this format, we are putting the instrument in the public domain; permission is not required to use the SCHFI.
Authors: Stefan D Anker; Abdissa Negassa; Andrew J S Coats; Rizwan Afzal; Philip A Poole-Wilson; Jay N Cohn; Salim Yusuf Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-03-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Barbara Riegel; Beverly Carlson; Debra K Moser; Marge Sebern; Frank D Hicks; Virginia Roland Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Patricia Flatley Brennan; Gail R Casper; Laura J Burke; Kathy A Johnson; Roger Brown; Rupa S Valdez; Marge Sebern; Oscar A Perez; Billie Sturgeon Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Cheryl R Dennison; Mindy L McEntee; Laura Samuel; Brandon J Johnson; Stacey Rotman; Alexandra Kielty; Stuart D Russell Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Nancy S Redeker; Andrea K Knies; Christopher Hollenbeak; H Klar Yaggi; John Cline; Laura Andrews; Daniel Jacoby; Anna Sullivan; Meghan O'Connell; Joanne Iennaco; Lisa Finoia; Sangchoon Jeon Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Barbara Riegel; Victoria Vaughan Dickson; Christopher S Lee; Marguerite Daus; Julia Hill; Elliane Irani; Solim Lee; Joyce W Wald; Stephen T Moelter; Lisa Rathman; Megan Streur; Foster Osei Baah; Linda Ruppert; Daniel R Schwartz; Alfred Bove Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Susan C McMillan; Brent J Small; William E Haley; Cheryl Zambroski; Harleah G Buck Journal: J Hosp Palliat Nurs Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 1.918
Authors: Elliane Irani; Scott Emory Moore; Ronald L Hickman; Mary A Dolansky; Richard A Josephson; Joel W Hughes Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Sandra B Dunbar; Brittany Butts; Carolyn M Reilly; Rebecca A Gary; Melinda K Higgins; Erin P Ferranti; Steven D Culler; Javed Butler Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 3.250