Schuler Michael, Faller Hermann, Wittmann Michael, Schultz Konrad
a Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy , Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Würzburg , Würzburg , Germany and.
b Bad Reichenhall Clinic, Centre for Rehabilitation, Pneumology and Orthopedics , Bad Reichenhall , Germany.
J Asthma. 2016;53(4):438-45. doi: 10.3109/02770903.2015.1101134. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
This study examined the factor structures and reliabilities of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7; ACQ-6) and the correspondence between them in assessing both level and change in asthma control.
Lung function and questionnaire data for ACT and ACQ were assessed in 113 asthma patients at the beginning (T1) and the end (T2) of inpatient rehabilitation. Confirmatory factor analyses, composite reliability coefficients, Pearson correlations, Cohen's Kappa and positive/negative agreements were computed.
Unidimensional factor structure was confirmed for ACT. For ACQ configural invariance (i.e. same factor structure) over time could not be established. Furthermore, in ACQ-7, FEV1 showed no relation to the latent factor. Reliability estimates were 0.86-0.88 (ACT), 0.88-0.92(ACQ-6) and 0.81-0.86 (ACQ-7). Pearson correlations between ACT and ACQ were between 0.75 and 0.90 and tended to be higher at T2. If the aim is to identify patients with either not well-controlled asthma or change in asthma control, concordance was at least moderate (Kappa = 0.52-0.72). Correspondence tended to be lower in identifying patients with well-controlled asthma (Kappa = 0.30-0.79). In some circumstances, ACQ-6 showed higher agreement with ACT than did ACQ-7.
ACT is a unidimensional measure, but factor structure of ACQ remains unclear. Correspondence between ACT and ACQ depends on the aim of the assessment. Including FEV1 in the assessment of asthma control level even lowers reliability of ACQ and concordance with ACT. Our results support GINA (2014) in conceptualizing FEV1 as a risk factor for poor asthma outcome instead of an indicator of level of asthma control.
本研究探讨了哮喘控制测试(ACT)和哮喘控制问卷(ACQ - 7;ACQ - 6)的因子结构及信度,以及它们在评估哮喘控制水平和变化方面的一致性。
对113例哮喘患者在住院康复开始时(T1)和结束时(T2)进行肺功能及ACT和ACQ问卷数据评估。计算验证性因子分析、组合信度系数、Pearson相关性、Cohen's Kappa系数以及阳性/阴性一致性。
ACT被证实具有单维因子结构。ACQ随时间的构型不变性(即相同因子结构)无法确立。此外,在ACQ - 7中,第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)与潜在因子无关联。信度估计值分别为:ACT为0.86 - 0.88,ACQ - 6为0.88 - 0.92,ACQ - 7为0.81 - 0.86。ACT与ACQ之间的Pearson相关性在0.75至0.90之间,且在T2时往往更高。如果目的是识别哮喘控制不佳或哮喘控制有变化的患者,一致性至少为中等(Kappa = 0.52 - 0.72)。在识别哮喘控制良好的患者时,一致性往往较低(Kappa = 0.30 - 0.79)。在某些情况下,ACQ - 6与ACT的一致性高于ACQ - 7。
ACT是一种单维测量方法,但ACQ的因子结构仍不明确。ACT与ACQ之间的一致性取决于评估目的。在哮喘控制水平评估中纳入FEV1甚至会降低ACQ的信度以及与ACT的一致性。我们的结果支持全球哮喘防治创议(GINA,2014)将FEV1概念化为哮喘不良结局的风险因素而非哮喘控制水平指标的观点。