↓ Skip to main content

Cross‐Validation of the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nursing Scholarship, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Cross‐Validation of the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire
Published in
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, July 2017
DOI 10.1111/jnu.12318
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is the leading method for assessing quality of life in patients with heart failure (HF) around the world. However, unique, culture-specific variations in factorial structure have been identified. The current study examined the cross-cultural equivalence of an Italian version of the MLHFQ. Cross-sectional assessment as part of an HF study in Italy. Patients (n = 1,192; mean age = 72 years, SD = 11) completed demographics, the MLHFQ, and the Short-Form 12 (SF-12). A series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to develop an appropriate factor model in the current sample. We initially fit a confirmatory factor analysis based on published psychometric work validating the MLHFQ. This did not provide adequate fit, and the sample was then randomly split into equivalent subsets to conduct factor analyses with cross-validation. In the first subsample, an exploratory factor analysis uncovered slight modifications to the proposed factor structure that resulted in much improved model fit. The final model included a higher order factor and three subscales: physical, emotional, and social. A cross-validation confirmatory factor analysis using this structure was conducted in the remaining subset to ensure broader applicability of the results. Correlations with the SF-12 were consistent with previous work using these measures. Some items of the MLHFQ are sensitive to differences across cultures, and factor structures vary based on where the scale is administered. In spite of these differences, the total score remains a valid and reliable indicator of quality of life in HF patients across cultures. Cultural influences on quality of life are important to consider when assessing patients' well-being in HF.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Professor 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 23 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Psychology 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 26 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,399,539
of 27,541,852 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nursing Scholarship
#512
of 964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,233
of 333,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nursing Scholarship
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,541,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 333,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.