Danilo Carrozzino1, Kaj Sparle Christensen2, Chiara Patierno1, Agnieszka Woźniewicz3, Stine Bjerrum Møller4, Ida-Marie T P Arendt4, Yuqun Zhang5, Yonggui Yuan6, Natsu Sasaki7, Daisuke Nishi7, Carmen Berrocal Montiel8, Sara Ceccatelli9, Giovanni Mansueto10, Fiammetta Cosci11. 1. Department of Psychology "Renzo Canestrari", Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. Research Unit for General Practice and Section for General Medical Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Geriatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark. 5. School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China; Department of Psychosomatics and Psychiatry, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, China. 6. Department of Psychosomatics and Psychiatry, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, China. 7. Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 8. Department of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 9. Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Florence, Italy. 10. Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Florence, Italy; Department of Psychology, Sigmund Freud University, Ripa di Porta Ticinese, 77, 20143 Milan, Italy. 11. Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Florence, Italy; Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: fiammetta.cosci@unifi.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of psychological well-being and euthymia represents an emerging issue in clinical psychology and psychiatry. Rating scales and indices such as the 5-item version of the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and the Euthymia Scale (ES) were developed but insufficient attention has been devoted to the evaluation of their cross-cultural validity. This is the first study using Clinimetric Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (CLIPROM) criteria to assess cross-cultural validity and sensitivity of five different versions of the WHO-5 and ES. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study involving a total of 3762 adult participants from different European (i.e., Italy, Poland, Denmark) and non-European (i.e., China, Japan) countries was conducted. Item Response Theory models (Mokken and Rasch analyses) were applied. RESULTS: Mokken coefficients of scalability were found to range from 0.42 to 0.84. The majority of the versions of the WHO-5 fitted the Rasch model expectations. Paired t-tests revealed that the Italian and Danish WHO-5 versions were unidimensional. Person Separation Reliability indices showed that the Polish, Danish, and Japanese ES versions could reliably discriminate between subjects with different levels of euthymia. LIMITATIONS: A convenience sampling was used, thus limiting the generalizability of study findings. In addition, no measures of negative mental health were administered. CONCLUSIONS: WHO-5 can be used in international studies for cross-cultural comparisons since it covers transcultural components of subjective well-being. Findings also suggest that the ES can be used as a cross-cultural screening tool since it entailed the clinimetric property of sensitivity.
BACKGROUND: The assessment of psychological well-being and euthymia represents an emerging issue in clinical psychology and psychiatry. Rating scales and indices such as the 5-item version of the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and the Euthymia Scale (ES) were developed but insufficient attention has been devoted to the evaluation of their cross-cultural validity. This is the first study using Clinimetric Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (CLIPROM) criteria to assess cross-cultural validity and sensitivity of five different versions of the WHO-5 and ES. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study involving a total of 3762 adult participants from different European (i.e., Italy, Poland, Denmark) and non-European (i.e., China, Japan) countries was conducted. Item Response Theory models (Mokken and Rasch analyses) were applied. RESULTS: Mokken coefficients of scalability were found to range from 0.42 to 0.84. The majority of the versions of the WHO-5 fitted the Rasch model expectations. Paired t-tests revealed that the Italian and Danish WHO-5 versions were unidimensional. Person Separation Reliability indices showed that the Polish, Danish, and Japanese ES versions could reliably discriminate between subjects with different levels of euthymia. LIMITATIONS: A convenience sampling was used, thus limiting the generalizability of study findings. In addition, no measures of negative mental health were administered. CONCLUSIONS: WHO-5 can be used in international studies for cross-cultural comparisons since it covers transcultural components of subjective well-being. Findings also suggest that the ES can be used as a cross-cultural screening tool since it entailed the clinimetric property of sensitivity.
Authors: Nataliya Nerobkova; Yu Shin Park; Eun-Cheol Park; Suk-Yong Jang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Mariela Loreto Lara-Cabrera; Moisés Betancort; Amparo Muñoz-Rubilar; Natalia Rodríguez-Novo; Ottar Bjerkeset; Carlos De Las Cuevas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 4.614