Scholarlink

<p>Positive Health is gaining attention for measurement purposes. In this study, the 17-items Positive Health (PH17) questionnaire and the 12-items Individual Recovery Outcomes&#xa0;Counter (I.ROC12) questionnaire were investigated on usefulness for measuring self-reported changes in Positive Health. An observational study was performed in a Dutch&#xa0;post-covid-19 patient population to assess test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation&#xa0;coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and smallest detectable change&#xa0;(SDC)), internal consistency and construct validity by hypothesis testing. PH17, I.ROC12&#xa0;and – for comparison – EQ5D-VAS were completed at six (T6) and twelve (T12) months&#xa0;after hospital discharge and again within 5 days after T12 (retest). For PH17, test-retest&#xa0;reliability was good for five factors and the total score (ICC &gt;0.7, SEM &lt;10%), but not&#xa0;for the factor Future perspective (ICC 0.56). Internal consistency was too high for three&#xa0;factors (Physical fitness, Contentment, and Mental functioning, Cronbach’s alpha &gt;0.9&#xa0;and too low for the factor Future perspective (&lt;0.59). For I.ROC12, reliability (ICC&#xa0;&gt;0.9, SEM &lt;10%) and internal consistency (0.7-0.9) were better than for PH17.&#xa0;Hypothesised coherences between the PH17 and I.ROC12 were confirmed indicating&#xa0;they cover similar Positive Health aspects. Coherence with the EQ5D-VAS also exists,&#xa0;but not for I.ROC12 on the change score. Both PH17 and I.ROC12 are reliable for&#xa0;measuring population-level change; I.ROC12 can also measure changes among&#xa0;individuals. Based on internal consistency, the I.ROC12 might be a better alternative to&#xa0;the PH17. The instrument choice should depend on the setting and measurement&#xa0;purpose such as for populations or individuals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessing validity and reliability of the Positive Health and Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter questionnaires for measuring self-reported changes in Positive Health

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月8日

查看全文
  • Vera P. van Druten,
  • Babette C. van der Zwaard,
  • Margot J. Metz,
  • Dike van de Mheen,
  • Esther de Vries,
  • Lenny M.W. Nahar-van Venrooij

摘要

Positive Health is gaining attention for measurement purposes. In this study, the 17-items Positive Health (PH17) questionnaire and the 12-items Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC12) questionnaire were investigated on usefulness for measuring self-reported changes in Positive Health. An observational study was performed in a Dutch post-covid-19 patient population to assess test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and smallest detectable change (SDC)), internal consistency and construct validity by hypothesis testing. PH17, I.ROC12 and – for comparison – EQ5D-VAS were completed at six (T6) and twelve (T12) months after hospital discharge and again within 5 days after T12 (retest). For PH17, test-retest reliability was good for five factors and the total score (ICC >0.7, SEM <10%), but not for the factor Future perspective (ICC 0.56). Internal consistency was too high for three factors (Physical fitness, Contentment, and Mental functioning, Cronbach’s alpha >0.9 and too low for the factor Future perspective (<0.59). For I.ROC12, reliability (ICC >0.9, SEM <10%) and internal consistency (0.7-0.9) were better than for PH17. Hypothesised coherences between the PH17 and I.ROC12 were confirmed indicating they cover similar Positive Health aspects. Coherence with the EQ5D-VAS also exists, but not for I.ROC12 on the change score. Both PH17 and I.ROC12 are reliable for measuring population-level change; I.ROC12 can also measure changes among individuals. Based on internal consistency, the I.ROC12 might be a better alternative to the PH17. The instrument choice should depend on the setting and measurement purpose such as for populations or individuals.