Lisa Rasbach1,2, Carolyn Jenkins1, Lori Laffel2. 1. College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina (Mrs Rasbach, Dr Jenkins) 2. Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, Massachusetts (Mrs Rasbach, Dr Laffel).
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the extant literature on instruments used to measure self-efficacy in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and their caregivers and to critically evaluate these measurements. METHODS: An integrative review (2003-2013) was conducted searching PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and US National Library of Medicine PubMed service (PubMed) databases using key words diabetes, type 1 diabetes, and self-efficacy. The authors reviewed the resulting 294 references for inclusion criteria of (a) sample of youth with T1DM or sample of caregivers of youth with T1DM, (b) description of the self-efficacy instrument as primary research, and (c) the instrument measured self-efficacy specifically related to diabetes management. Forty-five articles out of the initial 294 met criteria. RESULTS: Of the 45 articles, 10 different self-efficacy instruments were identified. The primary theoretical framework used was Bandura's social cognitive theory and model of self-efficacy. Most participants were white middle-class T1DM youth. Evaluations to assess validity often were not reported; however, a majority of studies reported high internal consistency of the instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Sample homogeneity could limit the applicability of results to certain patient populations. Further psychometric analysis, including validity assessments, should be conducted in more diverse samples. Development of valid and reliable instruments for measuring self-efficacy that are sensitive to change across a wider caregiver base over time is necessary. While this review examined reliable and valid instruments used in research, future opportunities include evaluation of measuring self-efficacy in T1DM youth exposed to recent advances in diabetes management technologies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the extant literature on instruments used to measure self-efficacy in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and their caregivers and to critically evaluate these measurements. METHODS: An integrative review (2003-2013) was conducted searching PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and US National Library of Medicine PubMed service (PubMed) databases using key words diabetes, type 1 diabetes, and self-efficacy. The authors reviewed the resulting 294 references for inclusion criteria of (a) sample of youth with T1DM or sample of caregivers of youth with T1DM, (b) description of the self-efficacy instrument as primary research, and (c) the instrument measured self-efficacy specifically related to diabetes management. Forty-five articles out of the initial 294 met criteria. RESULTS: Of the 45 articles, 10 different self-efficacy instruments were identified. The primary theoretical framework used was Bandura's social cognitive theory and model of self-efficacy. Most participants were white middle-class T1DM youth. Evaluations to assess validity often were not reported; however, a majority of studies reported high internal consistency of the instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Sample homogeneity could limit the applicability of results to certain patient populations. Further psychometric analysis, including validity assessments, should be conducted in more diverse samples. Development of valid and reliable instruments for measuring self-efficacy that are sensitive to change across a wider caregiver base over time is necessary. While this review examined reliable and valid instruments used in research, future opportunities include evaluation of measuring self-efficacy in T1DM youth exposed to recent advances in diabetes management technologies.
Authors: Cynthia A Berg; Jonathan E Butner; Jorie M Butler; Pamela S King; Amy E Hughes; Deborah J Wiebe Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Ronald J Iannotti; Stefan Schneider; Tonja R Nansel; Denise L Haynie; Leslie P Plotnick; Loretta M Clark; Douglas O Sobel; Bruce Simons-Morton Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Kathleen M Hanna; Michael T Weaver; Timothy E Stump; James E Slaven; J Dennis Fortenberry; Linda A DiMeglio Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Robin Whittemore; Sarah S Jaser; Sangchoon Jeon; Lauren Liberti; Alan Delamater; Kathleen Murphy; Melissa S Faulkner; Margaret Grey Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Jason Van Allen; Amy E Noser; Andrew K Littlefield; Paige L Seegan; Mark Clements; Susana R Patton Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: Marisa Otis; Jack Zhu; Suleiman N Mustafa-Kutana; Angelina V Bernier; Julio Ma Shum; Arlette A Soros Dupre; Monica L Wang Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Laura Lacomba-Trejo; Selene Valero-Moreno; Sara Casaña-Granell; Vicente Javier Prado-Gascó; Marián Pérez-Marín; Inmaculada Montoya-Castilla Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2018-11-14