| Title |
Validation of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) among adults with cardiac conditions in Singapore
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-016-1412-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bi Xia Ngooi, Tanya L. Packer, George Kephart, Grace Warner, Karen Wei Ling Koh, Raymond Ching Chiew Wong, Serene Peiying Lim |
| Abstract |
The Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) measures patients' knowledge, skill, and confidence in chronic condition self-management. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of PAM-13 (English version) among English-speaking adults with cardiac conditions in Singapore. A cross-sectional study was conducted in a convenient sample of 270 heart clinic patients. Using the unitary concept of validity, evidence of (1) internal structure via data quality, unidimensionality, differential item functioning, and internal consistency, (2) response process through item difficulty and item fit using Rasch modeling, and (3) relationship to other variables via correlations with depression and self-efficacy were examined. The item response was high with only one missing answer. All items had a small floor effect, but nine out of 13 items had a ceiling effect larger than 15 %. Cronbach's α was 0.86, and average inter-item correlations was 0.324. Results suggested unidimensionality; however, differences in item difficulty ranking were found. A low, negative correlation was found with depression, while a moderate, positive correlation was found with self-efficacy. Evidence in all three areas of validity were mixed. Caution should be exercised when using categorical activation "level" to inform clinical decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Professor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 25% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 20% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,068,164
of 23,555,482 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#251
of 2,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,618
of 322,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#4
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,555,482 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,947 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.