Leon P Sautier1, Sigrun Vehling2, Anja Mehnert3. 1. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: l.sautier@uke.de. 2. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Division of Psychosocial Oncology, Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) is a valid and reliable instrument designed to measure different sources of dignity-related distress in cancer patients receiving palliative care. OBJECTIVES: We investigated item characteristics, factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity of the German version of the PDI (PDI-G) among patients with cancer. METHODS: PDI was translated into the German language following state-of-the-art criteria. In a sample of 112 inpatients with mixed tumor types, principal component analysis, reliability analysis (Cronbach's coefficient alpha), and correlation analysis were performed. Concurrent validity was evaluated by validated measures of distress, demoralization, anxiety, depression, hopelessness, quality of life, sense of meaning and purpose, and supportive care needs. RESULTS: Cronbach's coefficient alpha for PDI-G was 0.96; factor analysis resulted in a four-factor solution, accounting for 71% of the overall variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.49 to 0.86. Factor labels include Loss of Sense of Worth and Meaning, Anxiety and Uncertainty, Physical Symptom Distress and Body Image, and Loss of Autonomy, showing high internal consistencies ranging from Cronbach's α 0.80 to 0.95. Evidence for concurrent validity was established by significant associations between PDI-G scales and concurrent measures of distress. CONCLUSION: Although we were unable to replicate the five-factor structure provided by Chochinov, this study gave strong support to an alternative four-factor solution of PDI-G, capturing all 25 items. We conclude that PDI-G is a psychometrically sound instrument assessing a broad range of dignity-related distress issues in patients with cancer.
CONTEXT: The Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) is a valid and reliable instrument designed to measure different sources of dignity-related distress in cancerpatients receiving palliative care. OBJECTIVES: We investigated item characteristics, factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity of the German version of the PDI (PDI-G) among patients with cancer. METHODS:PDI was translated into the German language following state-of-the-art criteria. In a sample of 112 inpatients with mixed tumor types, principal component analysis, reliability analysis (Cronbach's coefficient alpha), and correlation analysis were performed. Concurrent validity was evaluated by validated measures of distress, demoralization, anxiety, depression, hopelessness, quality of life, sense of meaning and purpose, and supportive care needs. RESULTS: Cronbach's coefficient alpha for PDI-G was 0.96; factor analysis resulted in a four-factor solution, accounting for 71% of the overall variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.49 to 0.86. Factor labels include Loss of Sense of Worth and Meaning, Anxiety and Uncertainty, Physical Symptom Distress and Body Image, and Loss of Autonomy, showing high internal consistencies ranging from Cronbach's α 0.80 to 0.95. Evidence for concurrent validity was established by significant associations between PDI-G scales and concurrent measures of distress. CONCLUSION: Although we were unable to replicate the five-factor structure provided by Chochinov, this study gave strong support to an alternative four-factor solution of PDI-G, capturing all 25 items. We conclude that PDI-G is a psychometrically sound instrument assessing a broad range of dignity-related distress issues in patients with cancer.
Authors: Emanuela Offidani; Giada Benasi; Mary E Charlson; Joseph E Ravenell; Carla Boutin-Foster Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2017-12-15
Authors: R Philipp; A Mehnert; C Lehmann; K Oechsle; C Bokemeyer; A Krüll; S Vehling Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Harvey Max Chochinov; Wendy Johnston; Susan E McClement; Thomas F Hack; Brenden Dufault; Murray Enns; Genevieve Thompson; Mike Harlos; Ronald W Damant; Clare D Ramsey; Sara Davison; James Zacharias; Doris Milke; David Strang; Heather J Campbell-Enns; Maia S Kredentser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240