↓ Skip to main content

Italian translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module questionnaire in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Italian translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module questionnaire in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12955-014-0115-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe d’Annunzio, Sara Gialetti, Chiara Carducci, Ivana Rabbone, Donatella Lo Presti, Sonia Toni, Eugenio Zito, Sara Bolloli, Renata Lorini, Ornella Della Casa Alberighi

Abstract

BackgroundThe PedsQL¿3.0 Diabetes Module is a widely used instrument to measure the disease-specific health-related quality of life summary measures in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. After cultural adaptation, we confirmed reliability and validity of PedsQL¿3.0 Diabetes Module in its Italian version.MethodsParticipants were 169 Italian children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes aged 5¿18 years and 100 parents. Reliability was determined by internal consistency using Cronbach¿s coefficient alpha, and test-retest reliability by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Validity was assessed through factor validity examined by exploratory factor analysis, and discriminant validity examined through multitrait/multi-item scaling analysis. Discriminant validity with respect to dichotomous patients¿ characteristics at baseline was also examined through a multivariate analysis on the summary measures using the Wilks¿ Lambda test.ResultsData completeness was optimal. Item internal consistency was satisfied at 89% for the child self-report scales and at 100% for the parents¿ proxy-report scales. Most diabetes module scales was acceptable for group comparisons. Discriminant validity was satisfied for 71% of children and adolescents and for 82% of parents. A ¿70% Cronbach¿s ¿ coefficient was found for the summary measures of both reports. For the test-retest reliability, the ICC coefficients ranged from 0.66 (i.e., the Worry scale) to 0.82 for the other scales of the child self-report. The ICC coefficients were ¿0.87 for all the parents¿ proxy-report scales. Factor analysis showed that the PedsQL¿3.0 Diabetes Module for child self-report could be summarized in 10 components, which explained the 62% of the variance. For the parent proxy-report the statistical analysis selected 9 factors, which explained about 68% of variance. The external discriminant validity of the PedsQL¿3.0 Diabetes Module summary measures were compared across gender, age, time since diagnosis and HbA1c mean cut off values. Significant differences in the ¿Treatment adherence¿ scale and in the ¿Communication¿ scale were observed across age, and by time since diagnosis.ConclusionsThe results show the reliability and validity of the Italian translation of the PedsQL¿3.0 Diabetes Module, supporting therefore its use as an outcome measure for diabetes cross-national clinical trials and research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bangladesh 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Unspecified 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 20 29%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Psychology 10 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Unspecified 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 16 24%
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 20 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,375,064
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,668
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,610
of 228,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 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 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 228,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.