IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0182792.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Guo
  • Ulrika Söderhamn
  • Jacqueline McCallum
  • Xianfei Ding
  • Han Gao
  • Qiyun Guo
  • Kun Liu
  • Yanjin Liu

Abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to test and compare the reliability and validity, including sensitivity and specificity of the two self-care-related instruments, the Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE), and the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale-Revised (ASAS-R), among older adults in the Chinese context. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used to conduct this study. The sample consisted of 1152 older adults. Data were collected by a questionnaire including the Chinese version of SASE (SASE-CHI), the Chinese version of ASAS-R (ASAS-R-CHI) and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency scale (ESCA). Homogeneity and stability, content, construct and concurrent validity, and sensitivity and specificity were assessed. Results: The Cronbach's alpha (α) of SASE-CHI was 0.89, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.15 to r = 0.81, and the test-retest correlation coefficient (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–1.00; P

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Guo & Ulrika Söderhamn & Jacqueline McCallum & Xianfei Ding & Han Gao & Qiyun Guo & Kun Liu & Yanjin Liu, 2017. "Testing and comparing two self-care-related instruments among older Chinese adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182792
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182792
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182792
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182792&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0182792?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0182792. 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: 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.