Iglesias K, Burnand B, Peytremann-Bridevaux I
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, Route de la Corniche 10, Lausanne CH-1010, Switzerland.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Jun;26(3):250-60. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu042. Epub 2014 Apr 15.
To better understand the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument. More specifically to test all published validation models, using one single data set and appropriate statistical tools.
Validation study using data from cross-sectional survey.
A population-based sample of non-institutionalized adults with diabetes residing in Switzerland (canton of Vaud).
French version of the 20-items PACIC instrument (5-point response scale). We conducted validation analyses using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The original five-dimension model and other published models were tested with three types of CFA: based on (i) a Pearson estimator of variance-covariance matrix, (ii) a polychoric correlation matrix and (iii) a likelihood estimation with a multinomial distribution for the manifest variables. All models were assessed using loadings and goodness-of-fit measures.
The analytical sample included 406 patients. Mean age was 64.4 years and 59% were men. Median of item responses varied between 1 and 4 (range 1-5), and range of missing values was between 5.7 and 12.3%. Strong floor and ceiling effects were present. Even though loadings of the tested models were relatively high, the only model showing acceptable fit was the 11-item single-dimension model. PACIC was associated with the expected variables of the field.
Our results showed that the model considering 11 items in a single dimension exhibited the best fit for our data. A single score, in complement to the consideration of single-item results, might be used instead of the five dimensions usually described.
为了更好地理解慢性病照护患者评估(PACIC)工具的结构。更具体地说,是使用单一数据集和适当的统计工具来检验所有已发表的验证模型。
使用横断面调查数据进行的验证研究。
居住在瑞士沃州的非机构化糖尿病成年人群体样本。
20项PACIC工具的法语版本(5点反应量表)。我们使用验证性因子分析(CFA)进行了验证分析。原始的五维度模型和其他已发表的模型通过三种类型的CFA进行检验:基于(i)方差协方差矩阵的皮尔逊估计器,(ii)多系列相关矩阵,以及(iii)对显变量采用多项分布的似然估计。所有模型均使用载荷和拟合优度指标进行评估。
分析样本包括406名患者。平均年龄为64.4岁,59%为男性。项目反应的中位数在1至4之间(范围为1 - 5),缺失值范围在5.7%至12.3%之间。存在明显的地板效应和天花板效应。尽管所检验模型的载荷相对较高,但唯一显示出可接受拟合度的模型是11项单维度模型。PACIC与该领域预期变量相关。
我们的结果表明,单维度考虑11项的模型对我们的数据拟合最佳。除了考虑单项结果外,可能可以使用单一分数来替代通常描述的五个维度。