National Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Communication and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.National Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Communication and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
National Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Communication and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014 Jul;53(7):1161-71. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket374. Epub 2013 Nov 18.
The measurement properties of instruments assessing self-efficacy (SE) in patients with rheumatic diseases were reviewed. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist was applied following systematic searches of seven electronic databases from 1989 to December 2011. Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria that included the arthritis SE scales (ASES), generalized SE scale (GSES), joint protection SE scale (JP-SES), Marcus & Resnick SE exercise behaviour (SEEB) instruments, and RA SE scale (RASE). The ASES and RASE have undergone more than one evaluation. There was little formal evaluation of content validity for the instruments. Evidence for the RASE suggests that it is not unidimensional. The JP-SES and SEEB were evaluated using modern psychometric methods. The instruments require further evaluation before application. The quality of the evidence for the ASES and RASE is generally poor. The generic focus of the GSES limits its relevance. The JP-SES and SEEB have only undergone one evaluation and that relating to the latter was narrow in scope. Future studies should address these methodological weaknesses.
本文回顾了评估风湿性疾病患者自我效能感（SE）的工具的测量特性。我们按照系统检索 1989 年至 2011 年 12 月七个电子数据库的结果，应用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）清单。有 15 篇文章符合纳入标准，包括关节炎自我效能感量表（ASES）、一般自我效能感量表（GSES）、关节保护自我效能感量表（JP-SES）、Marcus 和 Resnick 自我效能感运动行为量表（SEEB）和类风湿关节炎自我效能感量表（RASE）。ASES 和 RASE 已经过多次评估。这些工具的内容效度很少经过正式评估。RASE 的证据表明它不是单维的。JP-SES 和 SEEB 采用了现代心理测量学方法进行评估。这些工具在应用前需要进一步评估。ASES 和 RASE 的证据质量普遍较差。GSES 的通用性重点限制了其相关性。JP-SES 和 SEEB 仅进行了一次评估，后者的评估范围较窄。未来的研究应解决这些方法学上的弱点。
