Literature DB >> 22162359

The perceived personal control (PPC) questionnaire: reliability and validity in a sample from the United Kingdom.

Marion McAllister1, Alex M Wood, Graham Dunn, Shoshana Shiloh, Chris Todd.   

Abstract

Outcome measures are important assessment tools to evaluate clinical genetics services. Research suggests that perceived personal control (PPC) is an outcome valued by clinical genetics patients and clinicians. The PPC scale was developed in Hebrew to capture three dimensions of PPC: Cognitive, decisional, and behavioral control. This article reports on the first psychometric validation of the English translation of the PPC scale. Previous research has shown that the Hebrew and Dutch translations have good psychometric properties. However, the psychometric properties of the English translation have not been tested, and there is disagreement about the factor structure, with implications for how to score the measure. A total of 395 patients attending a clinical genetics appointment in the United Kingdom completed several measures at baseline, and a further 241 also completed measures at 2-4 weeks follow-up. The English language PPC has (a) a one-factor structure, (b) convergent validity with internal health locus of control (IHLC), satisfaction with life (SWL), depression, and authenticity, (c) high internal consistency (α = 0.83), and (d) sensitivity to change, being able to identify moderate changes in PPC following clinic attendance (Cohen's d = 0.40). These properties suggest the English language PPC measure is a useful tool for both clinical genetics research and for use as a Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) in service evaluation.
Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22162359     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34374

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  6 in total

1.  Parents' perspectives on participating in genetic research in autism.

Authors:  Magan Trottier; Wendy Roberts; Irene Drmic; Stephen W Scherer; Rosanna Weksberg; Cheryl Cytrynbaum; David Chitayat; Cheryl Shuman; Fiona A Miller
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2013-03

2.  Translation and Adaptation of the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24) for Use in Denmark.

Authors:  Birgitte Rode Diness; Gritt Overbeck; Tina Duelund Hjortshøj; Trine Bjørg Hammer; Susanne Timshel; Else Sørensen; Marion McAllister
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Identifying outcomes of clinical genetic services: qualitative evidence and methodological considerations.

Authors:  Christalla Pithara
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Clients' Perception of Outcome of Team-Based Prenatal and Reproductive Genetic Counseling in Serbian Service Using the Perceived Personal Control (PPC) Questionnaire.

Authors:  Goran Cuturilo; Olivera Kontic Vucinic; Ivana Novakovic; Svetlana Ignjatovic; Marija Mijovic; Nenad Sulovic; Dusan Vukolic; Milica Komnenic; Jasmina Tadic; Aleksandar Cetkovic; Aleksandra Belic; Aleksandar Ljubic
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Cardiology clinic patient attitudes toward and potential personal utility of genetic testing: Findings from a unique multiracial clinical sample.

Authors:  Claire M Erickson; Lindsay R Clark; Emre Umucu; Nhi H Vo; Annabelle Santos Volgman; Nathaniel A Chin; Fred B Ketchum; Carolyn H Jones; Carey E Gleason; Neelum T Aggarwal
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 2.717

6.  Short-term psychological impact of the BRCA1/2 test result in women with breast cancer according to their perceived probability of genetic predisposition to cancer.

Authors:  A Brédart; J L Kop; A Depauw; O Caron; S Sultan; D Leblond; A Fajac; B Buecher; M Gauthier-Villars; C Noguès; C Flahault; D Stoppa-Lyonnet; S Dolbeault
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 7.640

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.