Lubin R Deng1, Kevin S Masters2, Sarah J Schmiege3, Edward Hess4, David B Bekelman5. 1. Denver/Seattle Center of Innovation, Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System (L.R.D., E.H., D.B.B.), Aurora, Colorado, USA. Electronic address: lubin.deng@columbia.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Denver (K.S.M.), Denver, Colorado, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (S.J.S.), Aurora, Colorado, USA. 4. Denver/Seattle Center of Innovation, Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System (L.R.D., E.H., D.B.B.), Aurora, Colorado, USA. 5. Denver/Seattle Center of Innovation, Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System (L.R.D., E.H., D.B.B.), Aurora, Colorado, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine (D.B.B.), Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp) is a 12-item measure of spiritual well-being in chronic illness originally developed in patients with cancer. The overall scale, a two-factor model (meaning/peace, faith), and a three-factor model (meaning, peace, faith) have been proposed for the FACIT-Sp, and consensus on the best factor structure has not been reached. In addition, the factor structure of the FACIT-Sp has not been considered in patients with heart failure. OBJECTIVES: To examine the factor structure of the FACIT-Sp in heart failure patients. METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis framework was used to test three competing models on 217 patients with heart failure using data from the CASA (Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness) trial. The overall scale (single factor), two-factor, and three-factor models were tested using baseline data, then confirmed with 12-month data. Model modifications were made based on empirical inspection of baseline data and replicated using 12-month data. Cronbach's alpha and correlations with measures of quality of life and psychological health were examined. RESULTS: All three models had strong factor loadings on all items except the negatively worded items. The two-factor and three-factor models fit reasonably well after modifications, but the single factor did not fit well (1/2/3-factor: RMSEA 0.14/0.09/0.06, CFI 0.85/0.93/0.97, SRMR 0.09/0.05/0.04). Internal consistency was sufficient for all factors. CONCLUSION: The two-factor and three-factor models were supported in heart failure patients. The three-factor model demonstrated better statistical fit but was not more interpretable. KEY MESSAGE: This study investigated the factor structure of the FACIT-Sp in patients with heart failure. The two-factor and three-factor models were supported, but the single factor model was not. Negatively worded items did not perform well. Published by Elsevier Inc.
CONTEXT: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp) is a 12-item measure of spiritual well-being in chronic illness originally developed in patients with cancer. The overall scale, a two-factor model (meaning/peace, faith), and a three-factor model (meaning, peace, faith) have been proposed for the FACIT-Sp, and consensus on the best factor structure has not been reached. In addition, the factor structure of the FACIT-Sp has not been considered in patients with heart failure. OBJECTIVES: To examine the factor structure of the FACIT-Sp in heart failure patients. METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis framework was used to test three competing models on 217 patients with heart failure using data from the CASA (Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness) trial. The overall scale (single factor), two-factor, and three-factor models were tested using baseline data, then confirmed with 12-month data. Model modifications were made based on empirical inspection of baseline data and replicated using 12-month data. Cronbach's alpha and correlations with measures of quality of life and psychological health were examined. RESULTS: All three models had strong factor loadings on all items except the negatively worded items. The two-factor and three-factor models fit reasonably well after modifications, but the single factor did not fit well (1/2/3-factor: RMSEA 0.14/0.09/0.06, CFI 0.85/0.93/0.97, SRMR 0.09/0.05/0.04). Internal consistency was sufficient for all factors. CONCLUSION: The two-factor and three-factor models were supported in heart failure patients. The three-factor model demonstrated better statistical fit but was not more interpretable. KEY MESSAGE: This study investigated the factor structure of the FACIT-Sp in patients with heart failure. The two-factor and three-factor models were supported, but the single factor model was not. Negatively worded items did not perform well. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Paula Jimenez-Fonseca; Urbano Lorenzo-Seva; Pere Joan Ferrando; Alberto Carmona-Bayonas; Carmen Beato; Teresa García; María Del Mar Muñoz; Avinash Ramchandani; Ismael Ghanem; Alejandra Rodríguez-Capote; Carlos Jara; Caterina Calderon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Salim S Virani; Alvaro Alonso; Emelia J Benjamin; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Amanda Marma Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Christina M Shay; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Lisa B VanWagner; Connie W Tsao Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jane A Cannon; Peter Moffitt; Ana Cristina Perez-Moreno; Matthew R Walters; Niall M Broomfield; John J V McMurray; Terence J Quinn Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Bernd Löwe; Oliver Decker; Stefanie Müller; Elmar Brähler; Dieter Schellberg; Wolfgang Herzog; Philipp Yorck Herzberg Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David B Bekelman; Larry A Allen; Connor F McBryde; Brack Hattler; Diane L Fairclough; Edward P Havranek; Carolyn Turvey; Paula M Meek Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Patricia E Murphy; Andrea L Canada; George Fitchett; Kevin Stein; Kenneth Portier; Corinne Crammer; Amy H Peterman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: David B Bekelman; Sydney M Dy; Diane M Becker; Ilan S Wittstein; Danetta E Hendricks; Traci E Yamashita; Sheldon H Gottlieb Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.128