J Korean Acad Nurs.  2015 Jun;45(3):439-448. 10.4040/jkan.2015.45.3.439.

Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the HIV Self-Management Scale in Patients with HIV

• Kim GS
• Chu SH
• Park Y
• Choi JY
• Lee JI
• Park CG
• McCreary L

• KMID: 2164385
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2015.45.3.439

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to examine validity and reliability of Webel and colleagues' HIV Self-Management Scale when used with a Korean sample.
METHODS
The original 20-item HIV Self-Management Scale was translated into Korean using translation and back-translation. Nine HIV nurse experts tested content validity. Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data from 203 patients was used to test construct validity. Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlation with patients' self-rating as a "smart patient" measured using a visual analogue scale. Internal consistency was tested by Cronbach's alpha coefficients.
RESULTS
All items were rated as having satisfactory content validity. Based on PCA and consideration of conceptual meaning, a three-factor solution was selected, explaining 48.76% of the variance. CFA demonstrated the adequacy of the three-domain structure of the construct HIV self-management: daily self-management health practices, social support and HIV self-management, and chronic nature of HIV self-management. Goodness-of-fit indices showed an acceptable fit overall with the full model (chi2/ df(164)=1.66, RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.05, TLI=0.91, and CFI=0.92). The Korean version of the HIV Self-Management Scale (KHSMS) was significantly correlated with patients' self-rated smart patient (r=.41). The subscale Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from .78 to .81; alpha for the total scale was .89.
CONCLUSION
The KHSMS provides a valid and reliable measure of self-management in Korean patients with HIV. Continued psychometric testing is recommended to provide further evidence of validity with this population.

Keyword

HIV; Self-management; Self-care; Reliability; Validity

MeSH Terms

Adult
Female
HIV Infections/*psychology
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Principal Component Analysis
Program Evaluation
Psychometrics
Republic of Korea
*Self Care
Surveys and Questionnaires
Translating
Young Adult

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Three factor structure of the Korean version of the HIV Self-Management Scale (*p<.001).

Reference

1. Korea Federation for HIV/AIDS Prevention. HIV/AIDS statistics [Internet]. Seoul: Author;2013. cited 2013 June 16. Available from: http://www.kaids.or.kr/?c=2/37/41/70.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data-United States and 6 U.S. dependent areas-2010. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2011;17(3) [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: Author;2011. cited 2013 June 16. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/2010/surveillance_Report_vol_17_no_3.html.

3. Aberg JA. The changing face of HIV care: Common things really are common. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145(6):463–465.

4. Webel AR, Asher A, Cuca Y, Okonsky JG, Kaihura A, Dawson Rose C, et al. Measuring HIV self-management in women living with HIV/AIDS: A psychometric evaluation study of the HIV Selfmanagement Scale. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012; 60(3):e72–e81. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e318256623d.

5. World Health Organization. Innovative care for chronic conditions: Building blocks for actions: Global report. Noncommunicable diseases and mental health cluster. Geneva, CH: Autor;2002.

6. Siegel K, Lekas HM. AIDS as a chronic illness: Psychosocial implications. AIDS. 2002; 16:Suppl 4. S69–S76.

7. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003; 26(1):1–7.

8. Swendeman D, Ingram BL, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Common elements in self-management of HIV and other chronic illnesses: An integrative framework. AIDS Care. 2009; 21(10):1321–1334. DOI: 10.1080/09540120902803158.

9. Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987; 34(4):414–424.

10. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1(2):130–149. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.

11. Park CS, Yoo YS, Choi DW, Park HJ, Kim JI. Development and evaluation of “hospice smart patient” service program. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2011; 41(1):9–17. DOI: 10.4040/jkan.2011.41.1.9.

12. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992; 5(4):194–197. DOI: 10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4.

13. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986; 35(6):382–385.

14. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press;2010.

15. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008; 6(1):53–60.

16. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;2014.

17. Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Pers Individ Dif. 2007; 42(5):893–898. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017.

18. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6(1):1–55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

19. McDonald RP, Ho MH. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol Methods. 2002; 7(1):64–82.

20. Han HR, Kim KB, Kang J, Jeong S, Kim EY, Kim MT. Knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors about hypertension control among middle-aged Korean Americans with hypertension. J Community Health. 2007; 32(5):324–342. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-007-9051-y.

21. Shrestha AD, Kosalram K, Gopichandran V. Gender difference in care of type 2 diabetes. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2013; 52(189):245–250.

22. Kara B. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the thirst distress scale in patients on hemodialysis. Asian Nurs Res. 2013; 7(4):212–218. DOI: 10.1016/j.anr.2013.10.001.

23. Chou FY. Testing a predictive model of the use of HIV/AIDS symptom self-care strategies. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2004; 18(2):109–117. DOI: 10.1089/108729104322802533.

24. Aschner P, Horton E, Leiter LA, Munro N, Skyler JS. Practical steps to improving the management of type 1 diabetes: Recommendations from the global partnership for effective diabetes management. Int J Clin Pract. 2010; 64(3):305–315. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02296.x.

25. Breaux-Shropshire TL, Brown KC, Pryor ER, Maples EH. Relationship of blood pressure self-monitoring, medication adherence, self-efficacy, stage of change, and blood pressure control among municipal workers with hypertension. Workplace Health Saf. 2012; 60(7):303–311. DOI: 10.3928/21650799-20120625-04.

26. Pai HC, Lee S, Yen WJ, Lee MY. Testing of the factor structure of the sexual health knowledge measure with young adolescent Taiwanese girls. Health Care for Women International. 2013; 34(10):878–890. DOI: 10.1080/07399332.2012.700357.

27. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;2005.

28. Gomes B, McCrone P, Hall S, Riley J, Koffman J, Higginson IJ. Cognitive interviewing of bereaved relatives to improve the measurement of health outcomes and care utilisation at the end of life in a mortality followback survey. Support Care Cancer. 2013; 21(10):2835–2844. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-1848-x.

29. Kim YM, Bazant E, Storey JD. Smart patient, smart community: Improving client participation in family planning consultations through a community education and mass-media program in Indonesia. Int Q Community Health Educ. 2006; 26(3):247–270. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-105.

30. Yohannes AM, Dodd M, Morris J, Webb K. Reliability and validity of a single item measure of quality of life scale for adult patients with cystic fibrosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9:105. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-105.