↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Community Integration Measure for community-dwelling people with schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Community Integration Measure for community-dwelling people with schizophrenia
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13033-017-0138-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ai Shioda, Etsuko Tadaka, Ayako Okochi

Abstract

Community integration is an essential right for people with schizophrenia that affects their well-being and quality of life, but no valid instrument exists to measure it in Japan. The aim of the present study is to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Community Integration Measure (CIM) for people with schizophrenia. The Japanese version of the CIM was developed as a self-administered questionnaire based on the original version of the CIM, which was developed by McColl et al. This study of the Japanese CIM had a cross-sectional design. Construct validity was determined using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and data from 291 community-dwelling people with schizophrenia in Japan. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. The Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) and the UCLA Loneliness Scale, version 3 (UCLALS) were administered to assess the criterion-related validity of the Japanese version of the CIM. The participants were 263 people with schizophrenia who provided valid responses. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.87, and CFA identified one domain with ten items that demonstrated the following values: goodness of fit index = 0.924, adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.881, comparative fit index = 0.925, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.085. The correlation coefficients were 0.43 (p < 0.001) with the LSNS-6, 0.42 (p < 0.001) with the RSE, and -0.57 (p < 0.001) with the UCLALS. The Japanese version of the CIM demonstrated adequate reliability and validity for assessing community integration for people with schizophrenia in Japan.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 17%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 13 32%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,541,268
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#609
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,458
of 310,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.