SETTING: Tertiary level teaching institution in Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: The validation process involved 211 adult patients (English language n=101, Malay language n=110) with chronic liver disease. Characteristics of the study subjects were as follows: mean (SD) age was 56 (12.8) years, 58.3% were male and 41.7% female. The inclusion criteria were patients 18 years or older with chronic hepatitis and/or liver cirrhosis of any aetiology. The exclusion criteria were as follows: presence of hepatic encephalopathy, ongoing treatment with interferon and presence of other chronic conditions that have an impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL).
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. Cultural adaptation of the English version of the CLDQ was performed, and a Malay version was developed following standard forward-backward translation by independent native speakers. Psychometric properties of both versions were determined by assessing their internal consistency, test-retest reliability and discriminant and convergent validity.
RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency across the various domains of the CLDQ was 0.95 for the English version and 0.92 for the Malay version. Test-retest analysis showed excellent reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89 for the English version and 0.93 for the Malay version. The average scores of both the English and Malay versions of the CLDQ demonstrated adequate discriminant validity by differentiating between non-cirrhosis (English 6.3, Malay 6.1), compensated cirrhosis (English 5.6, Malay 6.0) and decompensated cirrhosis (English 5.1, Malay 4.9) (p<0.001). Convergent validity showed that correlation was fair between the English (ρ=0.59) and Malay (p=0.47) CLDQ versions with the EQ-5D, a generic HRQOL instrument.
CONCLUSION: The English and Malay versions of the CLDQ are reliable and valid disease-specific instruments for assessing HRQOL in Malaysian patients with chronic liver disease.
METHODS: The published English version of PIDAQ was pilot tested on 12- to 17-year-old adolescents, resulting in a few modifications to suit the Malaysian variety of English. Psychometric properties were tested on 393 adolescents who attended orthodontic practices and selected schools. Malocclusion was assessed using the Malocclusion Index, an aggregation of Perception of Occlusion Scale and the Aesthetic Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need, by the subjects (MI-S) and investigators (MI-D). Data were analysed for internal consistency and age-associated invariance, discriminant, construct and criterion validities, reproducibility and floor and ceiling effects using AMOS v.20 and SPSS v.20.
RESULTS: The item Don't like own teeth on video of the Aesthetic Concern (AC) subscale was not relevant to a large proportion of participants (11.7%). Therefore, it was removed and the Malaysian English PIDAQ was analysed based on 22 items instead of 23 items. Confirmatory factor analysis showed good fit statistics (comparative fit index: 0.902, root-mean-square error of approximation: 0.066). Internal consistency was good for the Dental Self-Confidence, Social Impact and Psychological Impact subscales (Cronbach's alpha: 0.70-0.95) but lower (0.52-0.62) though acceptable for the AC subscale as it consisted of only 2 items. The reproducibility test was acceptable (intra-class correlations: 0.53-0.78). For all PIDAQ subscales, the MI-S and MI-D scores of those with severe malocclusion differed significantly from those with no or slight malocclusion. There were significant associations between the PIDAQ subscales with ranking of perceived dental appearance, need for braces and impact of malocclusion on daily activities. There were no floor or ceiling effects.
CONCLUSION: The adapted Malaysian English PIDAQ demonstrated adequate psychometric properties that are valid and reliable for assessment of psychological impacts of dental aesthetics among Malaysian adolescents.
METHODS: A total of 25 items were developed based on literature reviews encompassing four main constructs: sexual intention, attitude, social norms and self-efficacy. The YSI-Q then underwent a validation process that included content and face validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This study was conducted on unmarried youths aged 18 to 22 years who were studying in colleges around Klang Valley, Malaysia.
RESULTS: EFA supported the four factor structure, but five items were removed due to incorrect placement or low factor loading (<0.60). Internal reliability using Cronbach's alpha ranged between 0.89 and 0.94. The CFA further confirmed the construct, convergent and discriminant validity of the YSI-Q with χ 2 = 392.43, df = 164, p
METHODS: The Brunei Malay EQ-5D-5L was developed by culturally adapting two existing Malay versions. A total of 154 Bruneians with T2DM completed the questionnaire in two different points of time with one week apart. Known-groups validity of the utility-based EQ-5D-5L index and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was evaluated by comparing subgroups of patients known to differ in health status. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or Cohen's kappa.
RESULTS: As hypothesized, patients known to have 'better' health had higher EQ-5D-5L index scores than those having 'worse' health in all 7 known-groups comparisons. The hypothesized difference in the EQ-VAS scores was observed in only 4 of the 7 known-groups comparisons. Kappa values ranged from 0.206 to 0.446 for the EQ-5D-5L items; the ICC value for the EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS was 0.626 and 0.521, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The utility-based EQ-5D-5L index appears to be valid and reliable for measuring the health of Brunei patients with T2DM. The validity of the EQ-VAS in Brunei requires further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia.
SETTING: An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a "collaborator" or a "non-collaborator". Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) of the PPCI for physicians.
RESULTS: A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. "Collaborators" had significantly higher scores compared to "non-collaborators" (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test-retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752.
CONCLUSION: The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors' views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometrics properties of the Malay version of M-JCQ among nurses in Malaysia.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out on nurses working in 4 public hospitals in Klang Valley area, Malaysia. M-JCQ was used to assess the perceived psychosocial stressors and physical demands of nurses at their workplaces. Construct validity of the questionnaire was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Cronbach's α values were used to estimate the reliability (internal consistency) of the M-JCQ.
RESULTS: EFA showed that 34 selected items were loaded in 4 factors. Except for psychological job demand (Cronbach's α 0.51), the remaining 3 α values for 3 subscales (job control, social support, and physical demand) were greater than 0.70, indicating acceptable internal consistency. However, an item was excluded due to poor item-total correlation (r<0.3). The final M-JCQ was consisted of 33 items.
CONCLUSION: The M-JCQ is a reliable and valid instrument to measure psychosocial and physical stressors in the workplace of public hospital nurses in Malaysia.