Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 5

Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the self-efficacy for managing chronic disease 6-item scale

Pages
1254–1261
Publication Date
2022-11-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results of factor analysis, the scale had a 2-dimensional structure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: The measurement of self-efficacy is an important step toward improving chronic disease management, enhancing adherence to treatment, and assessing patients with chronic diseases.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of factor analysis, the scale had a 2-dimensional structure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: The measurement of self-efficacy is an important step toward improving chronic disease management, enhancing adherence to treatment, and assessing patients with chronic diseases. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale. Materials and methods: In this methodological study, the sample consisted of 211 patients receiving chronic disease care in 2 family health centers in İstanbul, Turkey. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, concurrent validity, Cronbach’s alpha, item-total correlation, and test-retest reliability. Results: Most of the sample were women (72%), primary school graduates (41.7%), hypertensive (68.7%), and had comorbidities (68.2%). The mean age of the sample was 60.5 ± 10.9. The scale mean was 5.66 ± 2.28. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was 0.90. Item-total correlations were between 0.64–0.85 and test-retest reliability was high (R = 0.95, P < 0.001). A positive, significant correlation was found in concurrent validity. According to the results of factor analysis, the scale had a 2-dimensional structure. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale is a valid and reliable instrument to assess perceived the self-efficacy level of patient with chronic disease.

🔖

Cite This Article

İNCİRKUŞ, K., NAHCİVAN, N. Ö. (2022). Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the self-efficacy for managing chronic disease 6-item scale. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 5, 1254–1261. https://ajindex.com/articles/609704

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Bora Basara B, Dirimese V, Ozkan E, Varol O. Turkey burden of disease study 2004. Ankara, Turkey: Aydogdu Ofset Printing Industry and Trade Co. Ltd; 2006
  2. Mollahaliloglu S, Hulur U, Yardim N, Ozbay H, Caylan AK et al. Health perspectives in Turkey 2007. Ankara, Turkey: Boluk Ofset Printing; 2007
  3. World Health Organization. Burden, mortality, morbidity and risk factors: global status report on non-communicable diseases 2010. Italy: WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data; 2011
  4. Lorig KR, Holman HR. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2003; 26 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.1207/ S15324796ABM2601_01 5. Beaglehole R, Epping-Jordan J, Patel V, Chopra M, Ebrahim S et al. Improving the prevention and management of chronic disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a priority for primary health care. Lancet 2008; 372: 940-949. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61404-X 6. Haskett T. Chronic illness management: changing the system. Home Health Care Management Practice 2006; 18: 492-496. doi: 10.1177/1084822306289988 7. Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, Grumbach K. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA 2002; 288 (19): 2469-2475. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.19.2469 8. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 1982; 37 (2): 122-147
  5. Bandura A. Self-efficacy. In: Ramachandran VS (editor). Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Vol
  6. New York, USA: Academic Press; 1994
  7. Clark NM, Dodge JA. Exploring self-efficacy as a predictor of disease management. Health Education & Behavior 1999; 26 (1): 72-89. doi: 10.1177/109019819902600107 11. Frei A, Svarin A, Steurer-Stey C, Puhan MA. Self-efficacy instruments for patients with chronic diseases suffer from methodological limitations-a systematic review. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2009; 7 (1): 86-96. doi: 10.1186/1477- 7525-7-86
  8. Taylor D, Bury M. Chronic illness, expert patients and care transition. Sociology of Health & Illness 2007; 29 (1): 27-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00516.x 13. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 1993; 28 (2): 117- 148
  9. Bandura A, Adams NE. Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1977; 1 (4): 287-310
  10. Lorig K, Sobel D, Ritter P, Laurent D, Hobbs M. Effects of a self-management program for patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Pract