IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0130702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construct Validity of the Chinese Version of the Activities of Daily Living Rating Scale III in Patients with Schizophrenia

Author

Listed:
  • En-Chi Chiu
  • Yen Lee
  • Kuan-Yu Lai
  • Chian-Jue Kuo
  • Shu-Chun Lee
  • Ching-Lin Hsieh

Abstract

Background: The Chinese version of the Activities of Daily Living Rating Scale III (ADLRS-III), which has 10 domains, is commonly used for assessing activities of daily living (ADL) in patients with schizophrenia. However, construct validity (i.e., unidimensionality) for each domain of the ADLRS-III is unknown, limiting the explanations of the test results. Purpose: This main purpose of this study was to examine unidimensionality of each domain in the ADLRS-III. We also examined internal consistency and ceiling/floor effects in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: From occupational therapy records, we obtained 304 self-report data of the ADLRS-III. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the 10 one-factor structures. If a domain showed an insufficient model fit, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to investigate the factor structure and choose one factor representing the original construct. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Ceiling and floor effects were determined by the percentage of patients with the maximum and minimum scores in each domain, respectively. Results: CFA analyses showed that 4 domains (i.e., leisure, picture recognition, literacy ability, communication tools use) had sufficient model fits. These 4 domains had acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.79-0.87) and no ceiling/floor effects, except the leisure domain which had a ceiling effect. The other 6 domains showed insufficient model fits. The EFA results showed that these 6 domains were two-factor structures. Conclusion: The results supported unidimensional constructs of the leisure, picture recognition, literacy ability, and communication tool uses domains. The sum scores of these 4 domains can be used to represent their respective domain-specific functions. Regarding the 6 domains with insufficient model fits, we have explained the two factors of each domain and chosen one factor to represent its original construct. Future users may use the items from the chosen factors to assess domain-specific functions in patients with schizophrenia.

Suggested Citation

  • En-Chi Chiu & Yen Lee & Kuan-Yu Lai & Chian-Jue Kuo & Shu-Chun Lee & Ching-Lin Hsieh, 2015. "Construct Validity of the Chinese Version of the Activities of Daily Living Rating Scale III in Patients with Schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130702
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130702
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130702&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0130702?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bob Thompson, 2008. "Liveability," ERES eres2008_275, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark B. Taylor, 2021. "Counter Corporate Litigation: Remedy, Regulation, and Repression in the Struggle for a Just Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-24, September.
    2. David F. Holland & Amanda Kraha & Linda R. Zientek & Kim Nimon & Julia A. Fulmore & Ursula Y. Johnson & Hector F. Ponce & Mariya Gavrilova Aguilar & Robin K. Henson, 2018. "Reliability Generalization of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: A Meta-Analytic View of Reliability Estimates," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440188, September.
    3. Joseph A. McCAHERY & Erik P.M. VERMEULEN & HISATAKE Masato & SAITO Jun, 2007. "Traditional and Innovative Approaches to Legal Reform: 'The New Company Law'," Discussion papers 07033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. Ryan K. Jacobson & Chockalingam Viswesvaran, 2017. "A Reliability Generalization Study of the Political Skill Inventory," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    5. Kojo Kakra Twum & Andrews Agya Yalley & Gloria Kakrabah-Quarshie Agyapong & Daniel Ofori, 2021. "The influence of Public University library service quality and library Brand image on user loyalty," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 207-227, June.
    6. Colleen E. Phillips & Chelsi King & Trisha M. Kivisalu & Siobhan K. O’Toole, 2016. "A Reliability Generalization of the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    7. Stel, Nora & Naudé, Wim, 2016. "Business in Genocide: Understanding and Avoiding Complicity," IZA Discussion Papers 9743, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Zeynep Filiz, 2010. "Service quality of travel agents in Turkey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 793-805, June.
    9. van Duin, J.H.R. & Tavasszy, L.A. & Taniguchi, E., 2007. "Real time simulation of auctioning and re-scheduling processes in hybrid freight markets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1050-1066, November.
    10. Rafael Pimentel Maia & Per Madsen & Rodrigo Labouriau, 2014. "Multivariate survival mixed models for genetic analysis of longevity traits," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 1286-1306, June.
    11. Itohan Omoregbee & Ben W. Morrison & Natalie M.V. Morrison, 2016. "A Case for Using Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence Measures in the Selection of Trainee Psychologists," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Couwenberg Oscar, 2008. "Corporate Architecture and Limited Liability," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 621-640, December.
    13. Peter Joseph Jongen & Keith Wesnes & Björn van Geel & Paul Pop & Evert Sanders & Hans Schrijver & Leo H Visser & H Jacobus Gilhuis & Ludovicus G Sinnige & Augustina M Brands & and the COGNISEC study g, 2014. "Relationship between Working Hours and Power of Attention, Memory, Fatigue, Depression and Self-Efficacy One Year after Diagnosis of Clinically Isolated Syndrome and Relapsing Remitting Multiple Scler," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-7, May.
    14. Yongyun Shin & Stephen W. Raudenbush, 2011. "The Causal Effect of Class Size on Academic Achievement," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 36(2), pages 154-185, April.
    15. Ondrej Stopka & Maria Stopkova & Rudolf Kampf, 2019. "Application of the Operational Research Method to Determine the Optimum Transport Collection Cycle of Municipal Waste in a Predesignated Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Carme Montserrat & Shazly Savahl & Sabirah Adams & Brîndușa Antonia Grigoraș & Claudia Bacter & Sergiu Bălțătescu, 2021. "Children’s Perspectives on Scale Response Options of Subjective Well-Being Measures: A Comparison between Numerical and Verbal-Response Formats," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(1), pages 53-75, February.
    17. W. Paul Jones & Scott A. Loe, 2013. "Optimal Number of Questionnaire Response Categories," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, May.
    18. Brauner, Jacob, 2020. "Are Smileys Valid Answers? Survey Data Quality with Innovative Item Formats," SocArXiv dk9bc, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0130702. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.