BACKGROUND: The Partners in Health (PIH) scale is a measure designed to assess the generic knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and impacts of self-management. A cross-cultural adaptation of the PIH for use in Hong Kong was evaluated in this study. This paper reports the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of PIH (C-PIH[HK]). METHOD: A 12-item PIH was translated using forward-backward translation technique and reviewed by individuals with chronic diseases and health professionals. A total of 209 individuals with chronic diseases completed the scale. The construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were evaluated in two waves. RESULTS: The findings in Wave 1 (n = 73) provided acceptable psychometric properties of the C-PIH(HK) but supported the adaptation of question 5 to improve the cultural relevance, validity, and reliability of the scale. An adapted version of C-PIH(HK) was evaluated in Wave 2. The findings in Wave 2 (n = 136) demonstrated good construct validity and internal consistency of C-PIH(HK). A principal component analysis with Oblimin rotation yielded a 3-factor solution, and the Cronbach's alphas of the subscales ranged from 0.773 to 0.845. Participants were asked whether they perceived the self-management workshops they attended and education provided by health professionals as useful or not. The results showed that the C-PIH(HK) was able to discriminate those who agreed and those who disagreed related to the usefulness of individual health education (p < 0.0001 in all subscales) and workshops (p < 0.001 in the knowledge subscale) as hypothesized. The test-retest reliability was high (ICC = 0.818). CONCLUSION: A culturally adapted version of PIH for use in Hong Kong was evaluated. The study supported good construct validity, discriminate validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of the C-PIH(HK).
BACKGROUND: The Partners in Health (PIH) scale is a measure designed to assess the generic knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and impacts of self-management. A cross-cultural adaptation of the PIH for use in Hong Kong was evaluated in this study. This paper reports the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of PIH (C-PIH[HK]). METHOD: A 12-item PIH was translated using forward-backward translation technique and reviewed by individuals with chronic diseases and health professionals. A total of 209 individuals with chronic diseases completed the scale. The construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were evaluated in two waves. RESULTS: The findings in Wave 1 (n = 73) provided acceptable psychometric properties of the C-PIH(HK) but supported the adaptation of question 5 to improve the cultural relevance, validity, and reliability of the scale. An adapted version of C-PIH(HK) was evaluated in Wave 2. The findings in Wave 2 (n = 136) demonstrated good construct validity and internal consistency of C-PIH(HK). A principal component analysis with Oblimin rotation yielded a 3-factor solution, and the Cronbach's alphas of the subscales ranged from 0.773 to 0.845. Participants were asked whether they perceived the self-management workshops they attended and education provided by health professionals as useful or not. The results showed that the C-PIH(HK) was able to discriminate those who agreed and those who disagreed related to the usefulness of individual health education (p < 0.0001 in all subscales) and workshops (p < 0.001 in the knowledge subscale) as hypothesized. The test-retest reliability was high (ICC = 0.818). CONCLUSION: A culturally adapted version of PIH for use in Hong Kong was evaluated. The study supported good construct validity, discriminate validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of the C-PIH(HK).
Entities:
Keywords:
Chinese; Chronic condition; Cultural adaptation; Scale validation; Self-management
Authors: Malcolm Battersby; Peter Harvey; P David Mills; Elizabeth Kalucy; R G Pols; Peter A Frith; Peter McDonald; Adrian Esterman; George Tsourtos; Ronald Donato; Rodney Pearce; Christopher McGowan Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Peter W Harvey; John N Petkov; Gary Misan; Jeffrey Fuller; Malcolm W Battersby; Teofilo N Cayetano; Kate Warren; Paul Holmes Journal: Aust Health Rev Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 1.990