Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2014

Development and psychometric properties of the Maastricht Personal Autonomy Questionnaire (MPAQ) in older adults with a chronic physical illness

Auteurs: Godelief M. J. Mars, Jacques Th. M. van Eijk, Marcel W. M. Post, Ireen M. Proot, Ilse Mesters, Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To develop and test the Maastricht Personal Autonomy Questionnaire (MPAQ), an instrument measuring personal autonomy of older adults with a chronic physical illness in accordance with their experience of autonomy. Achievement of personal autonomy is conceptualized as correspondence between the way people’s lives are actually arranged and the way people want to arrange their lives.

Methods

A field test was conducted in three waves (n = 412, n = 125 and n = 244) among a random sample of people older than 59 years with either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes mellitus. Construct validity, reproducibility and responsiveness were evaluated.

Results

The MPAQ entailing 16 items consists of three scales: degree of (personal) autonomy, working on autonomy and dilemmas. Construct validity was largely supported by confirmatory factor analysis and correlations between the MPAQ and other instruments. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.61 to 0.80 and SRDsgroup from 0.10 to 0.13. Mean change was larger (0.54) than was SRDgroup (0.11) in patients who had deteriorated, but smaller in patients who had improved (0.07).

Conclusions

The MPAQ has good content and construct validity and moderate reproducibility. Responsiveness is weak, although better for deterioration than for improvement.
vorige artikel Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank
volgende artikel The Italian version of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability and validity
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Michie, S., Miles, J., & Weinman, J. (2003). Patient-centredness in chronic illness: What is it and does it matter? Patient Education and Counseling, 51, 197–206.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Cardol, M., De Haan, R. J., de Jong, B. A., Van den Bos, G. A. M., & De Groot, I. J. M. (2001). Psychometric properties of the ‘impact on participation and autonomy’ (IPA) questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(2), 210–216.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Clark, D. A., Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., & Ross, L. (1995). Psychometric characteristics of revised sociotropy and autonomy Scales in college students. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 325–334.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bekker, M. H. (1993). The development of an autonomy scale based on recent insights into gender identity. European Journal of Personality, 7, 177–194.CrossRef
5.
Anderson, R. A., Worthington, L., Anderson, W. T., & Jennings, G. (1994). The development of an autonomy scale. Contemporary Family Therapy, 16, 329–345.CrossRef
6.
Mars, G. M. J., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Widdershoven, G. A. M., Janssen, P. P. M., & Van Eijk, J. T. M. (2008). Conceptualizing autonomy in the context of chronic physical illness: Relating philosophical theories to social scientific perspectives. Health, 12, 333–348.PubMed
7.
Mars, G. M. J., Proot, I. M., Janssen, P. P. M., Van Eijk, J. T. M., & Kempen, G. I. J. M. (2007). How do people with COPD or diabetes type 2 experience autonomy? An exploratory study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 485–493.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Williams, G. H., & Wood, P. H. N. (1988). Coming to terms with chronic illness: The negotiation of autonomy in rheumatoid arthritis. International Disability Studies, 10(3), 128–133.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Townsend, A., Wyke, S., & Hunt, K. (2006). Self-managing and managing self: Practical and moral dilemmas in accounts of living with chronic illness. Chronic Illness, 2, 185–194.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Hunt, M. R., & Ells, C. (2011). Partners towards autonomy: Risky choices and relational autonomy in rehabilitation care. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 961–967.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Van Eijk, J. T. M., & De Haan, M. (1998). Care for the chronically ill: The future role of health care professionals and their patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 233–240.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Mars, G. M. J., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Post, M. W. M., Proot, I. M., Mesters, I., & Van Eijk, J. T. M. (2009). The Maastricht social participation profile: Development and clinimetric properties in older adults with a chronic physical illness. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1207–1218.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Lessler, J. T., & Forsyth, B. H. (1996). A coding system for appraising questionnaires. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 259–291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
14.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences no. 07–017). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Esposito, J. L., & Rothgeb, J. M. (1997). Evaluating survey data: Making the transition from pretesting to quality assessment. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 541–571). New York: Wiley.
16.
Kurz, K., Prüfer, P., & Rexroth, M. (1999). Zur Validität von Fragen in standardisierten Erhebungen. Ergebnisse des Einsatzes eines kognitiven Pretestinterviews (On the validity of questions in standardised surveys. Results of a cognitive pretest interview). ZUMA-Nachrichten, 44(23), 83–107.
17.
SPSS for Windows, Rel. 12.0.1. (2003). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
18.
Lamers, F., Jonkers, C. C., Bosma, H., Diederiks, J. P., & Van Eijk, J. T. M. (2006). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychological intervention to reduce non-severe depression in chronically ill elderly patients: The design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN92331982]. BMC Public Health, 6, 161.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Sanderman, R. (1993). Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36: Een handleiding [Measuring general health with the RAND-36: A manual]. Groningen: Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken.
21.
Cardol, M., Beelen, A., Van den Bos, G. A., De Jong, B. A., De Groot, I. J., & De Haan, R. J. (2002). Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1524–1529.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.CrossRef
24.
Bosscher, R. J., & Smit, J. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the general self-efficacy scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 339–343.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Bosscher, R. J., Smit, J. H., & Kempen, G. I. J. M. (1997). Algemene competentieverwachtingen bij ouderen: Een onderzoek naar de psychometrische kenmerken van de Algemene Competentieschaal (ALCOS) (General self-efficacy expectancies in the elderly: A study about the psychometric properties of the General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 52, 239–248.
26.
Schreurs, P. J. G., Van de Willige, G., Brosschot, J. F., Tellegen, B., & Graus, G. M. H. (1993). De Utrechtse Coping Lijst: UCL; herziene handleiding [The Utrecht Coping List: UCL-Manual]. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
27.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
LISREL 8.3. (1999). Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
29.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
Faulbaum, F. (1981). Konfirmatorische Analysen der Reliabilität von Wichtigkeitseinstufungen beruflicher Merkmale. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 9, 22–44.
31.
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.CrossRef
32.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., De Boer, M. R., Van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Nichols, D. P. (1998). Choosing an intraclass correlation coefficient. SPSS Keywords, 67.
35.
De Vet, H. C., Bouter, L. M., Bezemer, P. D., & Beurskens, A. J. (2001). Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures: Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 17, 479–487.PubMed
36.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999). Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 135–160.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Drummond, N., & Mason, C. (1990). Diabetes in a social context: Just a different way of life in the Age of Reason. In S. Cunningham-Burley & N. McKeganey (Eds.), Readings in medical sociology (pp. 37–54). London: Routledge.
38.
Adams, S., Pill, R., & Jones, A. (1997). Medication, chronic illness and identity: The perspective of people with asthma. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 189–201.PubMedCrossRef
39.
McCoach, D., & Anderson, J. (2010). Dealing with dependence (part I): Understanding the effects of clustered data. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 152–155.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Development and psychometric properties of the Maastricht Personal Autonomy Questionnaire (MPAQ) in older adults with a chronic physical illness
Auteurs
Godelief M. J. Mars
Jacques Th. M. van Eijk
Marcel W. M. Post
Ireen M. Proot
Ilse Mesters
Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0619-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2014

Positive and negative aspects of well-being as correlates of breast reconstruction decision

Getting serious about test–retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations

Environmental effects on WHODAS 2.0 among patients with stroke with a focus on ICF category e120

Dutch–Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)

Factors associated with health-related quality of life in chronic leg ulceration

Reliability and validity of the Iranian version of the QAPACE in adolescents

  • Brief Communication