Author
Listed:
- Augusto Iossa Fasano
(Cultural Scientific Association “Metandro”, 51100 Pistoia, Italy
School of Psychoanalytic and Group Analytic Psychotherapy SPPG, 89100 Reggio Calabria, Italy)
- Paolo Mandolillo
(Cultural Scientific Association “Metandro”, 51100 Pistoia, Italy
School of Psychoanalytic and Group Analytic Psychotherapy SPPG, 89100 Reggio Calabria, Italy)
- Yura Loscalzo
(Department of Health Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)
- Marco Giannini
(Department of Health Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)
- Gabriele Grippo
(Cardiology Department, Ospedale di Prato, 59100 Prato, Italy)
- Isabella Imbimbo
(Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00100 Rome, Italy
Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopedic, and Head-Neck Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00100 Rome, Italy)
- Rosapia Lauro Grotto
(Department of Health Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy
Multidisciplinary Laboratory for the Analysis of Relationships in Health Care (M.A.R.H.C. Lab.), University of Pistoia Uniser, 51100 Pistoia, Italy)
Abstract
Many subjects with somatic pathologies or traumas in their recent anamnesis tend to experience symptoms and changes to their daily life parameters after technically successful treatment. Hence, this study aims to validate an investigation tool inspired by the prosthetic–bionic paradigm—namely, the PBP-Q—which allows for the evaluation of variation in questions relating to identity, psychosociality, and psychopathology in relation to the use of a prosthesis or device. We gathered 118 participants (68 females and 50 males) aged between 27 and 94 years (Mean = 58.42 ± 15.17). We performed both exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses on this sample. Moreover, we calculated the internal consistency for the PBP-Q scales and the total score for the questionnaire’s final 26-item and 5-factor versions. The five scales are psychological well-being; interpersonal relationships; professional relationships; autonomy and safety; addictions, compulsions, and obsessions. The internal consistency is good for both the total score and the subscales. In conclusion, overall, the PBP-Q has satisfactory psychometric properties, especially considering the measure’s complexity. It provides a quick and effective way to evaluate the changes that might arise after the use of a prosthesis or device and, subsequently, has implications for clinical practice.
Suggested Citation
Augusto Iossa Fasano & Paolo Mandolillo & Yura Loscalzo & Marco Giannini & Gabriele Grippo & Isabella Imbimbo & Rosapia Lauro Grotto, 2022.
"Subjective Response Measurement to Prosthesis or Device Use: Validation of the Prosthetic–Bionic Paradigm Questionnaire (PBP-Q),"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-14, April.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4656-:d:792336
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4656-:d:792336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.