Psychometric properties of the Comprehensive Diabetes Self-Management Scale in patient with diabetes

Year 2023, Volume: 40 Issue: 3, 472 - 477, 30.09.2023

Yasemin Şahin Yıldız , Birgül Altuğ , Hacer Yalnız Dilcen

Abstract

This study’s objective was to investigate the psychometric characteristics of the “Comprehensive Diabetes Self-Management Scale,” which was created by Mikhael et al. This scale provides a comprehensive screening tool for health promotion-oriented behaviors. With the involvement of 475 diabetic people, the study was undertaken between January and August 2022. The study’s sample was formed by taking more than 33 times the amount of items on the original scale (14 items). “Diabetes Self-Care Scale” was used as a parallel form to calculate reliability coefficients. The scale’s confirmatory factor analysis showed a very good fit [x2 (53, N=475) p=0.014; x2/ degree of freedom=1.477; chi-square:78.276; root mean square error of approximation =0.032; comparative fit index =0.970; goodness-of-fit index =0.975] with the results obtained in the first level factorial structure of 13 items and five sub-dimensions. There was a 57.16% overall variance, it was found. The Comprehensive Diabetes Self-Management Scale was shown to be a valid and reliable measuring instrument for people with diabetes. This scale will provide the opportunity to evaluate many important concepts and behaviors related to diabetes with a single tool.

Keywords

Comprehensive, reliability, self-management, type 2 diabetes, validity

Supporting Institution

Bartın University Ethics Committee

Project Number

Institutional permission (2021-SBB-0473)

Thanks

We sincerely thank the patients who participated in this study for their support.

References

• 1. Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, Pinkepank M, Ogurtsova K, Duncan BB, et al. IDF Diabetes atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;183:1-13.
• 2. Karakurt P, Hacıhasanoğlu Aşılar R, Yıldırım A. Evaluation of the self-care agency and perceived social support in patients with diabetes mellitus. Meandros Med Dent J. 2013;14(1):1–9.
• 3. Boyko EJ, Magliano DJ, Karuranga S, Piemonte L, Saeedi PRP, Hong S, editors. IDF Diabetes atlas. 10.th ed. International Diabetes Federation; 2021.
• 4. Aytemur M, Vardar İnkaya B. Investigation of diabetes complication risk perception and diabetes self-management skills in ındividuals with diabetes. Turkish J Diabetes Obes. 2022;2:121-130.
• 5. İncirkuş K, Özkan Nahcivan N. Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the self-efficacy for managing chronic disease 6-item scale. Turkish J Med Sci. 2020;50(5):1254-1261.
• 6. Ehrmann D, Eichinger V, Vesper I, Kober J, Kraus M, Schäfer V, et al. Health care effects and medical benefits of a smartphone-based diabetes self-management application: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2022;23(1):1-8.
• 7. Lu Y, Xu J, Zhao W, Han HR. Measuring Self-care in persons with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2016;39(2):131.
• 8. Ausili D, Barbaranelli C, Rossi E, Rebora P, Fabrizi D, Coghi C, et al. Development and psychometric testing of a theory-based tool to measure self-care in diabetes patients: The Self-care of diabetes ınventory. BMC Endocr Disord. 2017;17(1):1-12.
• 9. Lin C-C, Anderson RM, Chang C-S, Hagerty BM, Loveland-Cherry CJ. Development and Testing of the diabetes self-management ınstrument: A Confirmatory analysis. Res Nurs Health. 2008;31:370-380.
• 10. Wallston KA, Rothman RL, Cherrington A. Psychometric properties of the perceived diabetes self-management scale (PDSMS). J Behav Med. 2007;30(5):395-401.
• 11. Schmitt A, Gahr A, Hermanns N, Kulzer B, Huber J, Haak T. The Diabetes self-management questionnaire (DSMQ): Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess diabetes self-care activities associated with glycaemic control. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):1-14.
• 12. Chen CP, Peng YS, Weng HH, Fan JY, Guo SE, Yen HY, et al. Development and preliminary testing of a brief screening measure of healthy lifestyle for diabetes patients. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(1):90-99.
• 13. Eroğlu N, Sabuncu N. Adaptation Of diabetes self management questionnaire to turkish society: Validity and reliability study. J Nurs Sci. 2018;1(3):1-6.
• 14. 1Mankan T, Erci B, Bahçecioğlu Turan G, Aktürk Ü. Turkish validity and reliability of the Diabetes self-efficacy scale. Int J Nurs Sci. 2017;4(3):239-243.
• 15. Yildiz E, Kavuran E. The validity and reliability of the type 2 diabetes and health promotion scale Turkish version: a methodological study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018;32(1):417-421.
• 16. Peker Karatoprak A, Mert S, Demirhan Y, Altun İ, Baydemir C, Sözen M, et al. Diabetes health promotion self-care scale: Reliability and validity of the turkish version. Osmangazi J Med. 2021;44(3):414-427.
• 17. Koç E. Tip 2 diyabet tanısı konmuş kişilerde hastalık öz yönetiminin değerlendirilmesi ve tip 2 diyabet öz yönetimi ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi [Uzmanlık Tezi]. Gazi University; 2020.
• 18. Mikhael EM, Hassali MA, Hussain SA, Shawky N. Development and validation of a comprehensive diabetes self-management scale. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev. 2019;13(3):1717-1721.
• 19. Esin MN. Veri toplama yöntem ve araçları & veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği. In: Erdoğan S, Nahçıvan N, Esin N, editors. Hemşirelikte Araştırma: Süreç, Ugulama ve Kritik. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri; 2014. p. 193–232.
• 20. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. Basic Principles of scale development. J World Med Educ. 2014;40(13):39-49.
• 21. Field A. Discovering Statistics using SPSS for windows. 1th ed. Sage Publications; 2000.
• 22. Karakurt P. Impact of Education Provided to type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on self- care. [Doctoral thesis]. Atatürk University; 2008.
• 23. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28:563-575.
• 24. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston; 2013.
• 25. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. 10th ed. Boston; 2010.
• 26. Tabacknick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2007.
• 27. Yaşlıoğlu M. Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul Univ J Sch Bus. 2017;46:74-85.
• 28. Özdamar K. Eğitim, sağlık ve davranış bilimi / ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi - IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS ve MINTAB uygulamalı. 1th Ed. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi; 2016.
• 29. Yurdabakan İ, Çüm S. Scale development in behavioral sciences (based on exploratory factor analysis). Turkish J Fam Med Prim Care. 2017;11(2):108-126.
• 30. Tavşancıl E. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. 5 th ed. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi; 2014.
• 31. Atılgan H, Kan A, Aydın B. Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. 10th ed. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık; 2017.
• 32. Yıldız D, Uzunsakal E. A Comparıson of relıabılıty tests ın fıeld researches and an applıcatıon on agrıcultural data. J Bus Adm Soc Stud. 2018;2(1):14-28.
• 33. Streiner DL. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Can J Psychiatry. 1994;39(3):135-140.
• 34. Tinsley HEA, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34(4):414-424.
• 35. Bakır E, Samancıoğlu Bağlama S. Valıdıty and relıabılıty of the turkısh versıon of the dıabetes foot self-care behavıor scale. Karya J Heal Sci. 2021;2(2):39-43.
• 36. Saffari M, Karimi T, Koenig HG, Al-Zaben F. Psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the type 2 diabetes and health promotion scale (T2DHPS): A diabetes-specific measure of lifestyle. Scand J Caring Sci. 2015;29(3):603-612.
• 37. İnkaya B, Karadağ E. Turkish validity and reliability study of type 2 diabetes stigma assessment scale. Turkish J Med Sci Vol. 2021;51(3):1302-1309. doi:10.3906/sag-2006-255.
• 38. Özdamar K. Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi-1: SPSS-MINITAB. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi; 2013.