↓ Skip to main content

Development and preliminary evaluation of the validity and reliability of a revised illness perception questionnaire for healthcare professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Development and preliminary evaluation of the validity and reliability of a revised illness perception questionnaire for healthcare professionals
Published in
BMC Nursing, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0156-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seher Arat, Anke Van den Zegel, Maity Van Rillaer, Philip Moons, Joris Vandenberghe, Ellen De Langhe, René Westhovens

Abstract

Diverging perceptions between individual patients with somatic diseases and their healthcare professionals might cause problems in communication and decision-making. To date, no measurement tool is available to compare the illness perceptions between these two groups. The Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) is a validated, widely used instrument in many patient populations with somatic conditions. The aim of this study was to adapt the IPQ-R to a healthcare professional's version (IPQ-R HP) and to perform a preliminary evaluation of its validity and reliability. After adaptation of the IPQ-R HP, 17 doctors from 3 general hospitals and 9 head nurses from a university hospital evaluated the face and content validity of the IPQ-R HP. The results were quantified using the content validity index (CVI) and a modified kappa index (k*). For the reliability measurements a group of nurses from 4 nursing wards participated at 2 time points with an interval of 4 weeks. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were calculated. Twenty-eight of the 38 items demonstrated excellent content validity and four items showed good content validity. Four items had a sufficient k* and two items had a low CVI. The average CVI of the 7 dimensions ranged from 0.66 to 0.89. The Cronbach's alpha scores for the seven dimensions, intraclass coefficients and effect size estimates were acceptable. This preliminary evaluation of the IPQ-R HP shows an acceptable to good validity and reliability. Further exploration of the psychometric properties of this questionnaire in a large cohort of healthcare professionals is warranted.

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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Computer Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 23%
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 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,377,214
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#454
of 751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,610
of 339,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 339,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.