1 Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
2 Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
J Health Psychol. 2018 Apr;23(5):667-680. doi: 10.1177/1359105316642006. Epub 2016 Apr 22.
This study used Rasch analysis to examine the psychometric validity of the Diabetes Distress Scale and the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale to assess diabetes distress in 3338 adults with diabetes (1609 completed the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale ( n = 675 type 1 diabetes; n = 934 type 2 diabetes) and 1705 completed the Diabetes Distress Scale ( n = 693 type 1 diabetes; n = 1012 type 2 diabetes)). While criterion and convergent validity were good, Rasch analysis revealed suboptimal precision and targeting, and item misfit. Unresolvable multidimensionality within the Diabetes Distress Scale suggests a total score should be avoided, while suboptimal precision suggests that the Physician-related and Interpersonal distress subscales should be used cautiously.
本研究使用 Rasch 分析来检验糖尿病困扰量表和糖尿病问题区域量表在评估 3338 名糖尿病成年人(1609 名完成了糖尿病问题区域量表(n=675 型 1 糖尿病;n=934 型 2 糖尿病)和 1705 名完成了糖尿病困扰量表(n=693 型 1 糖尿病;n=1012 型 2 糖尿病))的心理测量有效性。虽然标准和收敛效度良好,但 Rasch 分析显示出精度和目标的不足,以及项目不匹配。糖尿病困扰量表内不可解决的多维性表明应避免使用总分,而精度不足表明医生相关和人际困扰分量表应谨慎使用。