Cross-diagnostic validity of the Nottingham Health Profile Index of Distress (NHPD).

DSpace Repository

In 11 minutes: The system will be going down for regular maintenance. Please save your work and logout. RESTART at 16:00

Cross-diagnostic validity of the Nottingham Health Profile Index of Distress (NHPD).

Details

Files for download

Find Full text There are no files associated with this item..

Overview of item record
Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title Cross-diagnostic validity of the Nottingham Health Profile Index of Distress (NHPD).
Author Wann-Hansson, Christine ; Klevsgård, Rosemarie ; Hagell, Peter
Date 2008
English abstract
BACKGROUND: The Nottingham Health Profile index of Distress (NHPD) has been proposed as a generic undimensional 24-item measure of illness-related distress that is embedded in the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Data indicate that the NHPD may have psychometric advantages to the 6-dimensional NHP profile scores. Detailed psychometric evaluations are, however, lacking. Furthermore, to support the validity of the generic property of outcome measures evidence that scores can be interpreted in the same manner in different diagnostic groups are needed. It is currently unknown if NHPD scores have the same meaning across patient populations. This study evaluated the measurement properties and cross-diagnostic validity of the NHPD as a survey instrument among people with Parkinson's disease (PD) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: Data from 215 (PD) and 258 (PAD) people were Rasch analyzed regarding model fit, reliability, differential item functioning (DIF), unidimensionality and targeting. In cases of cross-diagnostic DIF this was adjusted for and the impact of DIF on the total score and person measures was assessed. RESULTS: The NHPD was found to have good overall and individual item fit in both disorders as well as in the pooled sample, but seven items displayed signs of cross-diagnostic DIF. Following adjustment for DIF some aspects of model fit were slightly compromised, whereas others improved somewhat. DIF did not impact total NHPD scores or resulting person measures, but the unadjusted scale displayed minor signs of multidimensionality. Reliability was > 0.8 in all within- and cross-diagnostic analyses. Items tended to represent more distress (mean, 0 logits) than that experienced by the sample (mean, -1.6 logits). CONCLUSION: This study supports the within- and cross-diagnostic validity of the NHPD as a survey tool among people with PD and PAD. We encourage others to reassess available NHP data within the NHPD framework to further evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this simple patient-reported index of illness-related distress.
Link http://www.hqlo.com/content/pdf/1477-7525-6-47.pdf (external link to publication)
Publisher BioMed central
Host/Issue Health and Quality of Life Outcomes;2
Volume 6
Pages 47
Language eng (iso)
Subject Nottingham Health Profile index of Distress
Rasch analysis
Parkinson disease
Peripheral arterial disease
Medicine
Nursing
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/7185 Permalink to this page
Facebook

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Details

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics