Validation of the Chinese version of joint protection self-efficacy scale in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
- 25 Downloads
To develop and validate the Chinese version of the Joint Protection Self-Efficacy Scale (CJP-SES) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in China.
(1) Translation of the original German/English version JP-SES and cultural adaptation into the Chinese language; (2)Validation of the CJP-SES with the Chinese versions of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale-8 (ASES-8), the Laffrey Health Conception Scale (LHCS), 10-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions Scale (PEPPI-10), Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS-28) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Instrument measurement included reliability testing, item generation, construct validity, test–retest reliability, and correlation with other measurements. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to determine construct validity and internal consistency. One hundred fifteen patients with RA were investigated.
Finally, 105 RA patients were included in the analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated fit for a unidimensional model of the JP-SES. Additionally, the scale showed internal consistency (Cronbach’s α coefficient 0.922), kappa coefficient (0.653), and test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.94). Weak correlations with other scores for the other instruments, such as the Chinese version of ASES-8 (0.263) and PEPPI-10 (0.326). Correlation with duration (0.274), moderate correlation with BMI (− 0.438) and DAS-28 (− 0.493), and strong correlation with HAQ (− 0.644) were found in this research.
This is the first study to adapt and validate the JP-SES into Chinese for use in patients with RA. Our research showing that the CJP-SES has a good construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability. This scale can help doctors and nurses to assess the self-efficacy of patients with RA.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: TJYY-YLS-036
KeywordsJoint protection Rheumatoid arthritis Self-efficacy Validation
Chinese Joint Protection Self-Efficacy Scale
Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale-8
Laffrey Health Conception Scale
Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions Scale
Disease Activity Score-28
Health Assessment Questionnaire
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped me during the writing of this thesis. I gratefully acknowledge the help of nursing professor in Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ms. Xie Fei, who has offered valuable suggestions in the academic studies. I also owe a special debt of gratitude to all the doctors and nurses in Joint Surgery Department, from whose devoted teaching and enlightening lectures I have benefited a lot and academically prepared for the thesis.
Availability of data and material
No additional data are available.
Huiwen Zhao has received research approval from Tianjin Hospital. Wen Luo has received the authorization of using the JP-SES in Chinese/China from Karin Niedermann. Wen Luo, Xiuli Zhang and Xiuli Liu translated the JP-SES into Chinese; Wen Luo and Karin Niedermann and revised the back-translated scale. Xiuli Zhang, Xiuchan Liu and Zihan Yang performed data collection from participants and data analysis.
Wen H Zhao1 and Li X Zhang wrote the manuscript under the supervision of Wen Luo and advised by Karin Niedermann.
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Consent for publication
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- 1.Jorge MT, Jean YR, Mare CH (1996) Rheumatic and musculoskelelal disease and impaired quality of life: a challenge for rheumatologists. J Rheumatal 23:1–3Google Scholar
- 5.Ewert T, Fuessl M, Cieza A et al (2004) Identification of the most common patient problems in patients with chronic conditions using the icf checklist. J Rehabil Med 2:2–9Google Scholar
- 6.Lev EL (1997) Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy: applications to OGCOIogy. Sch Inq Nurs Pract 11:21–37Google Scholar
- 8.Brosseau L, Wells GA, Tugwell P et al (2004) Ottawa panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for therapeutic exercises in the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. Phys Ther 84:934–972Google Scholar
- 9.Xuelin G (2010) Nursing guidance for the self-efficacy in patients with rheumatoid. Zhejiang Clinical Medical 1:100Google Scholar
- 14.Funovits J, Aletaha D, Bykerk V, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, Felson D, Hawker G, Hazes JM, Huizinga T, Kay J, Kvien TK, Smolen JS, Symmons D, Tak PP, Silman A (2010) The 2010 American College of Rheumatology / European league against rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis:methodological report phase I. Ann Rheum Dis 69:1589–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 14:61–65Google Scholar
- 17.Lei G, Cuicui Z, Miaomiao L et al (2016) Reliability and validity of arthritis self-efficacy Scale-8 in application of patients with rheumatoid Arthritis. Chinese Gene Pract 19:3589–3592Google Scholar
- 19.Yuhua H, Qirun Q (1997) Predictors of health promoting lifestyle for college students in Kaohsiung. Chin J Public Health 16:25–35Google Scholar
- 26.Joreskog KG, Sörbom D, Du Toit S, Du Toit M (2001) LISREL 8: new statistical features. Scientific software international, LincolnwoodGoogle Scholar
- 27.Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp 136–162Google Scholar
- 36.Maddux JE, Gosselin JT (2003) Self-efficacy. In: Leary MR, Tangney JP (eds) Handbook of self and identity. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 218–238Google Scholar