Suppr超能文献

推进死亡素养指数:修订版(DLI-R)和简版(DLI-9)的开发

Progressing the Death Literacy Index: the development of a revised version (DLI-R) and a short format (DLI-9).

作者信息

Noonan Kerrie, Grindrod Andrea, Shrestha Sumina, Lee Sora, Leonard Rosemary, Johansson Therese

机构信息

Public Health Palliative Care Unit, La Trobe University, Bundoora Campus, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.

Western NSW Local Health District, Dubbo, Australia.

出版信息

Palliat Care Soc Pract. 2024 Sep 17;18:26323524241274806. doi: 10.1177/26323524241274806. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Since the development of the Death Literacy Index (DLI) in 2019 in Australia, subsequent internationally validated versions have prompted rewording and refinement of the original survey questions. Use of the DLI in the community has also resulted in requests for a short format.

OBJECTIVES

To examine and report on the psychometric properties of a revised version of the DLI-R and develop a short format DLI-9.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional national survey was conducted for the validation of the revised DLI.

METHODS

The DLI items were revised by the research team using the international literature. DLI data were collected from a representative online non-probability panel of 1202 Australian adults, based on age, gender, and geographical location. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the revised version (DLI-R) was consistent with the original. To develop a short format version of the DLI (DLI-9), items were first removed based on face validity, followed by an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA. The internal reliability of the DLI-R and the DLI-9 was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to examine the inter-rater reliability between the DLI-R and DLI-9.

RESULTS

Twenty-four questions in the DLI were reworded for clarity. A CFA on the 29 items of this modified version of the DLI indicated a good model fit (Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.93; Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.93; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA): 0.06; standardized root mean residual (SRMR): 0.06), with six latent variables and an underlying latent variable "death literacy." For the DLI-9, an EFA identified a nine-item, two-factor structure model (DLI-9). A subsequent CFA in a separate sample demonstrated a good model fit for the DLI-9 (TLI: 0.92; CFI: 0.94; RMSEA: 0.089; SRMR: 0.07). Excellent inter-rater reliability (0.98) was observed between DLI-9 and DLI-R. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for DLI-R scales and subscales and the DLI-9 all exceeded 0.8, indicating high internal consistency.

CONCLUSION

The DLI-R and the DLI-9 were found to have acceptable psychometric properties. The development of a shorter version of the DLI provides a valid measure of overall death literacy.

摘要

背景

自2019年澳大利亚开发死亡素养指数(DLI)以来,随后经过国际验证的版本促使对原始调查问卷问题进行了重新措辞和完善。在社区中使用DLI也引发了对简短版本的需求。

目的

检验并报告修订版DLI-R的心理测量特性,并开发一个简短版的DLI-9。

设计

进行了一项全国性横断面调查,以验证修订后的DLI。

方法

研究团队利用国际文献对DLI项目进行了修订。基于年龄、性别和地理位置,从1202名澳大利亚成年人的代表性在线非概率样本中收集DLI数据。进行验证性因素分析(CFA)以确保修订版(DLI-R)与原始版本一致。为了开发DLI的简短版(DLI-9),首先基于表面效度删除项目,随后进行探索性因素分析(EFA)和CFA。使用克朗巴哈系数评估DLI-R和DLI-9的内部信度。计算组内相关系数以检验DLI-R和DLI-9之间的评分者间信度。

结果

对DLI中的24个问题进行了重新措辞以使其更清晰。对该修订版DLI的29个项目进行的CFA表明模型拟合良好(塔克-刘易斯指数(TLI):0.93;比较拟合指数(CFI):0.93;近似均方根(RMSEA):0.06;标准化均方根残差(SRMR):0.06),有六个潜在变量和一个潜在变量“死亡素养”。对于DLI-9,EFA确定了一个九项、两因素结构模型(DLI-9)。随后在另一个样本中进行的CFA表明DLI-9模型拟合良好(TLI:0.92;CFI:0.94;RMSEA:0.089;SRMR:0.07)。在DLI-9和DLI-R之间观察到了出色的评分者间信度(0.98)。DLI-R量表、子量表和DLI-9的克朗巴哈系数均超过0.8,表明内部一致性高。

结论

发现DLI-R和DLI-9具有可接受的心理测量特性。开发DLI的较短版本为总体死亡素养提供了一种有效的测量方法。

相似文献

1
Progressing the Death Literacy Index: the development of a revised version (DLI-R) and a short format (DLI-9).
Palliat Care Soc Pract. 2024 Sep 17;18:26323524241274806. doi: 10.1177/26323524241274806. eCollection 2024.
2
Validation of a culturally adapted Swedish-language version of the Death Literacy Index.
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 30;18(11):e0295141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295141. eCollection 2023.
6
8
Adaptation of the Food Literacy Questionnaire for school children to Turkish: validity and reliability study.
Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Jul;182(7):3307-3316. doi: 10.1007/s00431-023-05010-3. Epub 2023 May 11.

本文引用的文献

1
Designing and validating a research questionnaire - Part 2.
Perspect Clin Res. 2024 Jan-Mar;15(1):42-45. doi: 10.4103/picr.picr_318_23. Epub 2024 Jan 9.
2
Validation of a culturally adapted Swedish-language version of the Death Literacy Index.
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 30;18(11):e0295141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295141. eCollection 2023.
4
The end-of-life needs of Aboriginal and immigrant communities: a challenge to conventional medical models.
Front Public Health. 2023 Jul 19;11:1161267. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1161267. eCollection 2023.
5
The Death Literacy Index: translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Chinese version.
Front Public Health. 2023 May 11;11:1140475. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1140475. eCollection 2023.
6
Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Death Literacy Index.
Omega (Westport). 2024 Feb;88(3):807-822. doi: 10.1177/00302228221144672. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
8
The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Feb 2;22(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07467-8.
9
Developing a death literacy index.
Death Stud. 2022;46(9):2110-2122. doi: 10.1080/07481187.2021.1894268. Epub 2021 Jun 21.
10
A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. Epub 2016 Mar 31.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验