Key result
Persian version of the SCHFI demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity for evaluating HF self-care.
Cross-Sectional (n=184)
The Persian translation of the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (pSCHFI) is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing self-care in Iranian patients with heart failure.
Supports pSCHFI for self-care assessment in Iranian HF patients; extends prior validations but leaves open outcome linkage.
BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a common burdensome health problem worldwide. Self-care improves outcomes in patients with CHF. The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) is a well-known scale for assessing self-care. A reliable, valid, and culturally acceptable instrument is needed to develop and test self-care interventions in Iran. OBJECTIVE: We sought to translate and validate the Persian version of SCHFI v 6.2 (pSCHFI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We translated the SCHFI into Persian (pSCHFI) using standardized methods. The reliability was evaluated by assessing Cronbach's α coefficient. Expert opinion, discussion with patients, and confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess face validity, content validity, and construct validity, respectively. The analysis, using 184 participants, showed acceptable internal consistency and construct validity for the 3 subscales of pSCHFI-self-care maintenance, self-care management, and self-care self-confidence. CONCLUSION: The pSCHFI is a valid instrument with an acceptable reliability for evaluating self-care in Persian patients with heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siabani et al. (2014) conducted a cross-sectional in Chronic heart failure (n=184). Persian version of SCHFI v 6.2 (pSCHFI) was evaluated on Reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity. The Persian version of the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (pSCHFI) demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and construct validity for evaluating self-care in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: