RESULTS: Five factors with eigenvalue > 1 were identified. Pattern matrix analysis showed that all items were loaded into the factors with factor loading > 0.4. One item was subsequently removed as Cronbach's alpha > 0.9 which indicates redundancy. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated acceptable factor loadings except for one item which was subsequently removed. Internal consistency and discriminant validity was deemed acceptable with no significant cross-loading.
Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later.
Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882.
Conclusion: The English version of the PACIC was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia.
Methods: The original English version of the GCEQ underwent forward and backward translation into the Malay language. A cross-sectional study was conducted. The finalised Malay version was administered to 674 undergraduate students at the Health Campus of the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) with a mean age of 20.27 years (SD = 1.35 years). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for the psychometric evaluation.
Results: The measurement model consisted of 20 observed items and five latent factors. CFA demonstrated adequate fit to the data: comparative fit index = 0.929; standardised root mean square residual = 0.052; root mean square error of approximation = 0.061 (90% CI = 0.056, 0.067). The composite reliability coefficients for the five latent factors ranged from 0.777 to 0.851. All the correlations between the factors were less than 0.85, so discriminant validity was achieved.
Conclusion: The findings suggested that the Malay version of the GCEQ is valid and reliable for assessing goal content in the exercise context of undergraduates at the Health Campus, USM.