The Summary of an Urdu Version of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure: Psychometric Evaluation and Validation

Rashid M Ansari, Mark F Harris, Hassan Hosseinzadeh, Nicholas Zwar, Rashid M Ansari, Mark F Harris, Hassan Hosseinzadeh, Nicholas Zwar

Abstract

Objective: The English version of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) measure is the most frequently used self-reporting instrument assessing diabetes self-management. This study is aimed at translating English SDSCA into the Urdu version and validating and evaluating its psychometric properties. Methods: The Urdu version of SDSCA was developed based on the guidelines provided by the World Health Organization for translation and adaptation of instruments. The panel of experts examined the content validity, reliability, and internal consistency of the instrument. The translation process from the English version to the Urdu version revealed excellent results at all the stages. Results: The instrument showed promising and acceptable results. Of particular mention are the results related to split-half reliability coefficient 0.90, test-retest reliability (r = 0.918, P < .001), intraclass coefficient (0.912), and Cronbach's alpha (.79). The factor analysis (exploratory and confirmatory) was not performed in this study due to the small sample size (n = 30) as the objective was to validate the Urdu version of the SDSCA instrument. Conclusions: This study provided evidence for the reliability and validity of the Urdu Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (U-SDSCA) instrument, which may be used in the future for the patients of diabetes in order to assess type 2 diabetes self-management activities in the rural area of Pakistan and other Urdu-speaking countries.

Keywords: Urdu SDSCA; instrument; self-management; type 2 diabetes; validation.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Steps of translation and adaptation of the instrument.

References

    1. Narayan KMV. The diabetes pandemic: looking for the silver lining. Clin Diabetes. 2005;23:51-52.
    1. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 9th ed. International Diabetes Federation; 2019. Accessed June 2, 2020
    1. Mensing C, Boucher J, Cypress M, et al. National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(suppl 1):S96-S103.
    1. Rayappa PH, Raju KNM, Kapur A, et al. The impact of socio-economic factors on diabetes care. Int J Diab Dev Countries. 1999;19:7-15.
    1. Rafique G, Shaikh F. Identifying needs and barriers to diabetes education in patients with diabetes. J Pak Med Assoc. 2006;56:347-352.
    1. Supplement 1. American Diabetes Association: clinical practice recommendations 2000. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(suppl 1):S1-S116.
    1. Toobert DJ, Hampson SE, Glasgow RE. The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:943-950.
    1. Mumtaz T, Haider SA, Malik JA, La Greca AM. Translation, validation and effectiveness of self-care inventory in assessing adherence to diabetes treatment. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016;66:853-858.
    1. Bell RA, Andrews JS, Arcury TA, Snively BM, Golden SL, Quandt SA. Depressive symptoms and diabetes self-management among rural older adults. Am J Health Behav. 2010;34:36-44.
    1. Xu Y, Toobert D, Savage C, Pan W, Whitmer K. Factors influencing diabetes self-management in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes. Res Nurs Health. 2008;31:613-625.
    1. Vincent D, McEwen MM, Pasvogel A. The validity and reliability of a Spanish version of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Questionnaire. Nurs Res. 2008;57:101-106.
    1. Al-Johani KA, Kendall GE, Snider PD. Psychometric evaluation of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities–Arabic (SDSCA-Arabic): translation and analysis process. J Transcult Nurs. 2016;27:65-72.
    1. Kamradt M, Bozogmehr K, Krisam J, et al. Assessing self-management in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 in Germany: validation of a German version of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure (SDSCA-G). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:185.
    1. Diamond I, Jefferies J. Beginning Statistics: An Introduction for Social Scientists. Sage; 2001.
    1. Trochim WMK, Donnelly JP. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog; 2007.
    1. World Health Organization. Diabetes. Published May 15, 2020. Accessed June 2, 2020
    1. Polit DF, Beck CT. The Content Validity Index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29:489-497.
    1. Fitzgerald JT, Funnell MM, Hess GE, et al. The reliability and validity of a brief diabetes knowledge test. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:706-710.
    1. Polit DF, Beck CT. Study Guide to Accompany Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
    1. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35:382-385.
    1. Elliott D. Assessing instrument psychometrics. In: Schneider Z, Elliott D, LoBiondo-Wood G, Beanland C, Haber J, eds. Nursing Research: Methods, Critical Appraisal and Utilization. Mosby; 2004.
    1. Aday LA, Cornelius LJ. Designing and Conducting Health Surveys: A Comprehensive Guide. Jossey-Bass; 2006.
    1. Munro BH. Statistical Methods for Health Care Research. 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
    1. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39:155-164.
    1. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HAW, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000;321:405-412.
    1. Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various Chi square approximations. J R Stat Soc Series B Methodol. 1954;16:296-298.
    1. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage; 2009.
    1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1-55.
    1. Eigenmann CA, Colagiuri R, Skinner TC, Trevena L. Are current psychometric tools suitable for measuring outcomes of diabetes education? Diabet Med. 2009;26:425-436.
    1. Caro-Bautista J, Martin-Santos FJ, Morales-Asencio JM. Systematic review of the psychometric properties and theoretical grounding of instruments evaluating self-care in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70:1209-1227.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe