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
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
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% |