OBJECTIVE: To develop a Malaysian version of St George's respiratory COPD specific questionnaire (SGRQ-CM), to evaluate the full spectrum of psychometric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness), to test the factor structure and to assess minimum clinically important difference for the SGRQ-CM, to be used in population of Malaysia.
METHODOLOGY: SGRQ-C was translated to Bahasa Malaysia using a standard protocol. 240 COPD patients were included in the study. All patients were followed-up for six months. Construct validity, internal consistency, item convergent validity, test-retest ability, responsiveness, factor analysis and MCID of the Malaysian version of SGRQ-C to be used in population of Malaysia were evaluated.
RESULTS: The Cronbach alpha coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for SGRQ-CM were reported as 0.87, and 0.88 respectively. Correlation of SGRQ-CM with CAT, EQ-5D-5 L, mMRC dyspnea scales and FEV1%predicted were reported as 0.86, - 0.82, 0.72 and - 0.42 respectively. Correlation coefficient between the subscales and other clinical and health status measures ranged from r = - 0.35 to r = - 0.87. The MCID was reported as 5.07 (- 2.54-12.67).
CONCLUSION: The Malaysian version of SGRQ-C has a good psychometric property comparable to those of the original version and has a strong evidence of validity, reliability and responsiveness towards disease severity in Malaysian COPD patients. It can be recommended as a reliable quality of life measure for future research.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. Postpartum women were identified from a tertiary hospital and evaluated at 1-month postnatal period using WOMBLSQ. The Rasch model was used to investigate the reliability, unidimensionality, item and person misfits and distribution map.
RESULTS: A total of 195 women were involved. The Rasch analysis revealed that the 30 items had a high level of reliability at 0.99 and item separation at 9.02. It has a low level of reliability at 0.45 and persons separation at 0.90. All the items are considered fit. Five people have most misfitting response strings based on item IPS_Q15, 'I was given little advice on contraception following the birth of my baby', but extremely trivial differences were found in the parameter estimates after refitting the model. The more difficult item to endorse satisfaction is item CA_Q17 'I was given little advice on contraception following the birth of my baby'.
CONCLUSIONS: The WOMBLSQ tested in postpartum women proved to have high item reliability index but with an adequate sample. The analysis shows that the 30 items target the right form of respondents, have similar latent characteristics of postpartum women and a shared sense of satisfaction. For future improvement, more difficult items endorsing satisfaction should be created, and the common items in which satisfaction is expected should be reduced.
METHODS: The study enrolled 110 participants (age: M = 46.85, SD = 11.23; female: 55.45%) undergoing hospital treatment, of whom 87 were included in the pre-post analysis. Participants completed a German translation of MAIA-2 and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (pre-/post-treatment). Internal consistency reliability was determined by Cronbach's α/McDonalds's ω, sensitivity to change was determined by effect sizes, and MIDs were determined by distribution- (0.5*SD) and anchor-based approaches (mean change method; ROC curve cut-points).
RESULTS: Depression severity reduced over the course of treatment (Median = -65.22%), and 34.48% of patients achieved remission. Reliability was appropriate for post-treatment (range of ω: .70-.90), but questionable for two pre-treatment scales (Noticing: ω = .64; Not-Distracting: ω = .66). The eight dimensions of MAIA-2 were sensitive to change (standardized response mean: .32-.81; Cohen's effect size: .30-.92). Distribution-based MIDs (.38-.61) and anchor-based mean change MIDs (remission vs. partial response: .00-.85; partial response vs. nonresponse: .08-.88) were established on the group level. For six scales, ROC cut-points (remission: .00-1.33; response: -.20-1.00) demonstrated accurate classification to treatment response groups on the individual level.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the applicability of the MAIA-2 questionnaire in MDD. The updated version may have led to reliability improvements regarding the revised scales, but subthreshold reliability was evident prior to treatment. The measure's dimensions were sensitive to change. MIDs were established that corresponded with antidepressive treatment outcomes. Our findings are consistent with a growing area of research which considers somatic feelings as key contributors to mental health.
METHODS: We surveyed HFrEF patients from two hospitals in Malaysia, using Malay, English or Chinese versions of EQ-5D-5L. EQ-5D-5L dimensional scores were converted to utility scores using the Malaysian value set. A confirmatory factor analysis longitudinal model was constructed. The utility and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were evaluated for validity (convergent, known-group, responsiveness), and measurement equivalence of the three language versions.
RESULTS: 200 HFrEF patients (mean age = 61 years), predominantly male (74%) of Malay ethnicity (55%), completed the admission and discharge EQ-5D-5L questionnaire in Malay (49%), English (26%) or Chinese (25%) languages. 173 patients (86.5%) were followed up at 1-month post-discharge (1MPD). The standardized factor loadings and average variance extracted were ≥ 0.5 while composite reliability was ≥ 0.7, suggesting convergent validity. Patients with older age and higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class reported significantly lower utility and VAS scores. The change in utility and VAS scores between admission and discharge was large, while the change between discharge and 1MPD was minimal. The minimal clinically important difference for utility and VAS scores was ±0.19 and ±11.01, respectively. Malay and English questionnaire were equivalent while the equivalence of Malay and Chinese questionnaire was inconclusive.
LIMITATION: This study only sampled HFrEF patients from two teaching hospitals, thus limiting the generalizability of results to the entire heart failure population.
CONCLUSION: EQ-5D-5L is a valid questionnaire to measure health-related quality of life and estimate utility values among HFrEF patients in Malaysia. The Malay and English versions of EQ-5D-5L appear equivalent for clinical and economic assessments.
METHODS: Two separate studies were conducted among adult community-dwelling Singapore residents of Chinese, Malay or Indian ethnicity where participants completed self-administered questionnaires. In the first study, secondary data analysis was conducted using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to shorten the PMH instrument. In the second study, the newly developed short PMH instrument and other scales were administered to 201 residents to establish its factor structure, validity and reliability.
RESULTS: A 20-item short PMH instrument fulfilling a higher-order six-factor structure was developed following secondary analysis. The mean age of the participants in the second study was 41 years and about 53% were women. One item with poor factor loading was further removed to generate a 19-item version of the PMH instrument. CFA demonstrated a first-order six-factor model of the short PMH instrument. The PMH-19 instrument and its subscales fulfilled criterion validity hypotheses. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the PMH-19 instrument were high (Cronbach's α coefficient = 0.87; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The 19-item PMH instrument is multidimensional, valid and reliable, and most importantly, with its reduced administration time, the short PMH instrument can be used to measure and evaluate PMH in Asian communities.
METHOD: The translation was performed according to standard principles and tested in 200 native Indonesian speakers who were aged above 18-year-old for psychometric validation.
RESULTS: The items in each domain had similar means and standard deviations (equal item variance), means ranging from 2.17 to 2.86 in general domain and 2.75 to 3.56 in personal domain and, standard deviations ranging from 0.87 to 1.05 and 0.88 to 1.01 in general and personal domain, respectively. Item-domain correlations were more than 0.5 for all items, and they correlate higher within their own domain compare with the other domain (convergent and divergent validity). Multitrait analysis showed similar variance, floor, and ceiling patterns to a great extent compared with the initial study. The Indonesian PATE scale also showed mostly similar correlation with demographic characteristics except monthly income. Principle axis analysis revealed strong factor loading (>0.3) in their hypothesized domain, except item 14. The Cronbach's α values for general and personal domains were 0.836 and 0.765, which were within the accepted range of 0.7 to 0.9.
CONCLUSION: The Indonesian PATE scale is a validated and reliable translation for measuring public attitudes toward epilepsy.
METHODS: We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers.
RESULTS: Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21%) and validity (16%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications.
CONCLUSIONS: Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies.