Psychometric Properties of New Subscales of the Ostomy Adjustment Scale: A Cross-Sectional Study

Kirsten Lerum Indrebø, Anny Aasprang, Torill Elin Olsen, John Roger Andersen, Kirsten Lerum Indrebø, Anny Aasprang, Torill Elin Olsen, John Roger Andersen

Abstract

Background: The Ostomy Adjustment Scale (OAS), which consists of an overall sum score along with 34 single-item scores, has been frequently used to measure self-reported adjustment to life with an ostomy. However, it is unknown whether the OAS can be divided into meaningful thematic subscales that may make it easier to administer and to apply in a clinical feedback system.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to specify thematic OAS subscales and evaluate their psychometric properties.

Patients and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 302 patients across Norway having colostomy, ileostomy, or urostomy. The OAS items were divided into different subscales by expert nurses and patients based on clinical and theoretical considerations. The overall structural validity of this analysis of the OAS was examined using robust confirmatory factor analysis. We evaluated the overall goodness of fit using the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). Factor loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis were used to calculate composite reliability values for the new OAS scales.

Results: The OAS was divided into seven subscales. The overall structure validity was acceptable with RMSEA = 0.053 (90% CI, 0.045-0.060), CFI = 0.913 and TLI = 0.904. The composite reliability values of all scales were >0.70.

Conclusions: The OAS can be divided into seven clinically meaningful subscales with acceptable psychometric properties.

Trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03841071. Date 18. February 2019 retrospectively registered.

Keywords: CFS; PRO; adjustment; clinical feedback system; factor analysis; ostomy; outpatient ostomy follow-up; patient reported outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this work.

© 2021 Indrebø et al.

References

    1. Claessens I, Probert R, Tielemans C, et al. The Ostomy Life Study: the everyday challenges faced by people living with a stoma in a snapshot. Gastrointestinal Nurs. 2015;13(5):18–25. doi:10.12968/gasn.2015.13.5.18
    1. Lopes A, Decesaro M. The adjustments experienced by persons with an ostomy: an integrative review of the literature. In: King of Prussia. Vol. 60. HMP Communications:2014;34–42. .
    1. Fingren J, Lindholm E, Petersen C, Hallen A-M, Carlsson E, A prospective, explorative study to assess adjustment 1 year after ostomy surgery among Swedish patients. J Ostomy Wound Manage. 2018;64(6):12–22. doi:10.25270/owm.2018.6.1222
    1. Ayaz‐Alkaya S. Overview of psychosocial problems in individuals with stoma: a review of literature. Int Wound J. 2018;16(1):243–249. doi:10.1111/iwj.13018
    1. Pia N, Ursula D, Thyra L, Jörgen R, Ulf G, Karin S. Quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(1):55–64. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1367-6
    1. Villa G, Manara DF, Brancato T, et al. Life with a urostomy: a phenomenological study. Appl Nurs Res. 2018;39:46–52. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2017.10.005
    1. Giordano V, Nicolotti M, Corvese F, Vellone E, Alvaro R, Villa G. Describing self‐care and its associated variables in ostomy patients. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(11):2982–2992. doi:10.1111/jan.14499
    1. Vonk-Klaassen SM, de Vocht HM, den Ouden MEM, Eddes EH, Schuurmans MJ. Ostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life of colorectal cancer ostomates: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2015;25(1):125–133. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1050-3
    1. Lim SH, Chan SWC, He H-G. Patients’ experiences of performing self-care of stomas in the initial postoperative period. Cancer Nurs. 2015;38(3):185–193. doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000000158
    1. Cheng F, Meng A-F, Yang L-F, Zhang Y-N. The correlation between ostomy knowledge and self-care ability with psychosocial adjustment in Chinese patients with a permanent colostomy: a descriptive study. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2013;59(7):35–38.
    1. Villa G, Mannarini M, Della Giovanna G, Marzo E, Manara DF, Vellone E. A literature review about self-care on ostomy patients and their caregivers. Int J Urol Nurs. 2019;13(2):75–80. doi:10.1111/ijun.12182
    1. Simmons KL, Smith JA, Maekawa A. Development and psychometric evaluation of the ostomy adjustment inventory-23. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009;36(1):69–76. doi:10.1097/WON.0b013e3181919b7d
    1. Bekkers MJTM, Van Knippenberg FCE, Van Den Borne HW, Van Berge-henegouwen GP. Prospective evaluation of psychosocial adaption to stoma surgery: the role of self-efficacy. 1996;58(2):183–191.
    1. Wu HK-M, Chau JP-C, Twinn S. Self-efficacy and quality of life among stoma patients in Hong Kong. Cancer Nurs. 2007;30(3):186–193. doi:10.1097/01.Ncc.0000270704.34296.86
    1. Karaçay P, Toğluk Yigitoglu E, Karadağ AJI. The validity and reliability of the Stoma Self‐Efficacy Scale: a methodological study. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2020;26(6):e12840. doi:10.1111/ijn.12840
    1. Olbrisch ME. Development and validation of the Ostomy Adjustment Scale. J Rehabilit Psychol. 1983;28(1):3. doi:10.1037/h0090996
    1. Zhang J-E, Wong FKY, Zheng M-C, Hu A-L, Zhang H-Q. Psychometric evaluation of the ostomy adjustment scale in Chinese cancer patients with colostomies. Cancer Nurs. 2015;38(5):395–405. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000213
    1. Indrebø KL, Andersen JR, Natvig GKJ. The Ostomy Adjustment Scale: translation into Norwegian language with validation and reliability testing. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2014;41(4):357–364. doi:10.1186/s12955-019-1261-3
    1. Burckhardt CS, Eisenberg MG. The ostomy adjustment scale: further evidence of reliability and validity. Rehabil Psychol. 1990;35(3):149–155. doi:10.1037/h0079056
    1. Brydolf M, Berndtsson I, Lindholm E, Berglund B. Evaluation of a Swedish version of the Ostomy Adjustment Scale. Scand J Caring Sci. 1994;8(3):179–183. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.1994.tb00019.x
    1. Indrebø KL, Aasprang A, Olsen TE, Andersen JR. A new model of patient-reported outcome monitoring with a clinical feedback system in ostomy care: rationale, description and evaluation protocol. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/s12955-019-1261-3
    1. Fayers PM, Hand DJ. Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1997;6(2):139–150. doi:10.1023/A:1026490117121.
    1. Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. J Annual Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85–110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
    1. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley; 2007.
    1. Indrebø KL, Natvig GK, Andersen JR, Cross-sectional A. Study to determine whether adjustment to an ostomy can predict health-related and/or overall quality of life. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2016;62(10):50–59.
    1. Zulkowski K, Ayello E, Stelton S. WCET International Ostomy Guideline. J Osborne Park Austr. 2014. Available from: .
    1. Olsen T, Indrebø KL, Dagsland V, Lindam A, Skogmo LG Faglig anbefaling for oppfølging av stomiopererte. 2020. Available from: . Accessed March3, 2021.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307. doi:10.1007/bf01593882
    1. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Statistical Software. 2012;48(2):1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
    1. DiStefano C, Shi D, Morgan GB. Collapsing categories is often more advantageous than modeling sparse data: investigations in the CFA framework. J Struct Equat Modeling. 2020;1–13. doi:10.1080/10705511.2020.1803073
    1. Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford publications; 2015; doi:10.5860/choice.44-2769
    1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. J Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
    1. Raykov T. Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. J Appl Psychol Measurement. 1997;21(2):173–184. doi:10.1177/01466216970212006
    1. Myers ND, Ahn S, Jin Y. Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2011;82(3):412–423. doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599773
    1. Rutherford C, Müller F, Faiz N, King MT, White K. Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the perspective of colorectal cancer survivors: meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. J PatientReported Outcomes. 2020;4(1):27. doi:10.1186/s41687-020-00195-9

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir