Multidimensionality of the PROMIS self-efficacy measure for managing chronic conditions

11Citations
Citations of this article
52Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the PROMIS Self-Efficacy Measure for Managing Chronic Conditions (PROMIS-SE) domain distributions and examined the factor structure of the PROMIS-SE. Methods: A total of 1087 individuals with chronic conditions participated in this study. PROMIS-SE’s item banks and two short forms (eight-item and four-item) measuring five behavioral domains (daily activities(DA), Emotions(EM), medications and treatments(MT), social interactions(SS), and Symptoms(SX)) were examined. PROMIS-SE’s T-score ranges and distributions were examined to identify domain metric distributions and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test a multidimensional model fit to the PROMIS-SE. Results: PROMIS-SE domains showed different T-score ranges and distributions for item banks and two short forms across all five domains. While PROMIS-SE EM demonstrated the highest T-scores (least negatively skewed), MT had the lowest T-scores (most negatively skewed) for all three forms. In general, respondents were more likely to achieve highest self-efficacy ratings (very confident) for domains DA, MT, and SS as compared to domains EM and SX. CFA confirmed that a multidimensional model adequately fit all three PROMIS-SE forms. Conclusion: Our results indicate that self-efficacy T-distributions are not consistent across domains (i.e., managing medications and treatments domain was more negatively skewed difficult than other domains), which is a requirement for making inter-domain comparisons. A multidimensional model could be used to enhance the PROMIS-SE’s estimate accuracy and clinical utility.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, M. J., Romero, S., Velozo, C. A., Gruber-Baldini, A. L., & Shulman, L. M. (2019). Multidimensionality of the PROMIS self-efficacy measure for managing chronic conditions. Quality of Life Research, 28(6), 1595–1603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02116-w

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free