Key result
The SE-ICD scale ranks as the most suitable of 5 evaluated instruments for assessing self-efficacy.
Why the study?
Valid tools to assess self-efficacy in cardiovascular diseases were needed to provide evidence-based practices and select the most suitable measuring instruments.
Which self-efficacy instruments have the best psychometric properties for use in patients with cardiovascular disease?
Systematic Review
Which self-efficacy instruments have the best psychometric properties for use in patients with cardiovascular disease?
The Self-Efficacy Expectations After Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation Scale is the most psychometrically sound instrument for assessing self-efficacy in cardiovascular disease patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports standardized self-efficacy assessment in ICD care; extends psychometric comparisons for cardiovascular research.
BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy plays an important role in recovery. There is a need for valid tools that can assess self-efficacy in cardiovascular diseases to provide evidence-based practices. OBJECTIVE: To perform a psychometric review of self-efficacy instruments in cardiovascular disease according to the COSMIN checklist in order to facilitate the selection of the most suitable measuring instruments. DESIGN: Psychometric systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was conducted on the Web of Science, EBSCOHOST CINAHL COMPLETE, PUBMED, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Cochrane Library, OVID and PROQUEST databases from their time of inception to January 2019. METHODS: We used COSMIN systematic review guideline to evaluate the quality of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and to facilitate the selection of the most suitable measuring instruments. RESULTS: After the search process, a total of nine studies conducted between 1998 and 2018 were included in the systematic review, representing five instruments. The Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrated high quality for content validity and low quality for internal consistency. The Cardiovascular Management Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrated high quality for structural validity and low quality for reliability and content validity. The General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrated high quality for both structural validity and internal consistency. Content validity was not assessed for this scale. The Hypertension Self-Care Profile Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrated a moderate quality for structural validity, internal consistency and reliability and also high quality for content validity. The Self-Efficacy Expectations After Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation Scale demonstrated high quality for structural validity, internal consistency and responsiveness. None of the studies determined measurement error, cross-cultural validity or criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Self-Efficacy Expectations After Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation Scale is categorised as A and is recommended as the most suitable instrument. All other the four instruments categorised as B with potential to be recommended should be evaluated with further psychometric studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kavradım et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular disease. Self-efficacy instruments was evaluated on Psychometric properties according to the COSMIN checklist. The Self-Efficacy Expectations After Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation Scale was recommended as the most suitable of 5 evaluated instruments for assessing self-efficacy.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: