Lam Amanda Yun Rui, Xin Xiaohui, Tan Wee Boon, Gardner Daphne Su-Lyn, Goh Su-Yen
Department of Endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Medicine Academic Clinical Programme, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017 Jun 8;5(1):e000329. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000329. eCollection 2017.
We conducted a cross-sectional study to adapt and validate the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II) for use in Singapore among persons with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus.
A total of 144 patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes on insulin therapy for at least a year completed the HFS-II between September and December 2013 in the Diabetes Center at Singapore General Hospital. We examined the validity (content, concurrent and discriminant validity, and construct validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability) of the instrument. Content validity was established using cognitive interviews. Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) followed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) after the hypothesized two-factor structure was not confirmed by CFA. Measures of anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)) were used to establish concurrent validity; history of severe hypoglycemia and status of glycemic control were used to establish discriminant validity. Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach's α; test-retest reliability was measured by intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC).
Scores of the adapted HFS-II had moderate positive correlations with measures of anxiety and depression scores (r=0.41, p<0.01; r=0.37, p<0.01. Patients with a recent history of severe hypoglycemia had higher HFS-II scores than those without (mean difference=9, p<0.01). Patients with poor glycemic control had higher HFS-II scores than those with good control (p<0.05). The original two-factor structure was not confirmed in our sample. EFA results suggested a three-factor solution with the original Behavior subscale splitting into two dimensions. The adapted HFS-II displayed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.93) and test-retest reliability (ICC=0.75).
The adapted HFS-II has good content, concurrent and discriminant validity, and reliability, but its constructvalidity was not proven with the Behavior subscale turning out to be non-unidimensional.
我们开展了一项横断面研究,旨在对低血糖恐惧调查-II(HFS-II)进行调整并验证其在新加坡1型和2型糖尿病患者中的适用性。
2013年9月至12月期间,新加坡总医院糖尿病中心共有144例接受胰岛素治疗至少一年的1型或2型糖尿病患者完成了HFS-II调查。我们检验了该工具的效度(内容效度、同时效度和区分效度以及结构效度)和信度(内部一致性和重测信度)。通过认知访谈确定内容效度。在验证性因子分析(CFA)未证实假设的两因子结构后,采用验证性因子分析(CFA),随后进行探索性因子分析(EFA)来评估结构效度。使用焦虑量表(广泛性焦虑障碍-7(GAD-7))和抑郁量表(患者健康问卷-9(PHQ-9))来确定同时效度;严重低血糖病史和血糖控制状况用于确定区分效度。内部一致性通过Cronbach's α系数衡量;重测信度通过组内相关系数(ICC)衡量。
调整后的HFS-II得分与焦虑和抑郁量表得分呈中度正相关(r = 0.41,p < 0.01;r = 0.37,p < 0.01)。近期有严重低血糖病史的患者HFS-II得分高于无此病史者(平均差异 = 9,p < 0.01)。血糖控制差的患者HFS-II得分高于控制良好者(p < 0.05)。我们的样本未证实原始的两因子结构。探索性因子分析结果表明为三因子结构,原始的行为子量表分为两个维度。调整后的HFS-II显示出良好的内部一致性(Cronbach's α = 0.93)和重测信度(ICC = 0.75)。
调整后的HFS-II具有良好的内容效度、同时效度和区分效度以及信度,但其结构效度未得到证实,因为行为子量表结果显示并非单维。