Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Well-adapted and validated well-being (WB) instruments for the nursing home population are scarce. To our knowledge, the Laurens Well-Being Inventory for Gerontopsychiatry (LWIG) is a practical and reliable well-being assessment tool that has never been validated for German nursing home populations. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to (1) translate and cross-culturally adapt the LWIG to a German context and (2) test the reliability and validity of the German LWIG in a group of older nursing home residents using the Rasch model.
Methods
This study has a cross-sectional, descriptive study design. Cross-cultural adaption of the LWIG-GER from English to German was performed according to a standardized method. The data obtained from 104 long-term nursing home residents (57 women, 47 men) aged 60–99 years (mean 79.5, standard deviation ±9.11) were analyzed for psychometric testing (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, item fit, McDonald’s ω, convergent validity, and known-group validity, Rasch).
Results
The final LWIG-GER consists of 19 items with three subscales, including “psychological WB”, “social WB”, and “physical WB”. The LWIG-GER showed good overall reliability with McDonald’s ω of 0.83; the LWIG-GER dimensions’ scores were significantly correlated with depression, functional performance, activities, fear of falling, and education.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that the German language version of the LWIG is a reliable and valid tool for measuring WB in nursing home residents. Furthermore, we propose that the LWIG-GER questionnaire can broaden and deepen our understanding of residents’ perception of quality of care and their environment.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Reference70 articles.
1. Allison, L. K., Painter, J. A., Emory, A., Whitehurst, P., & Raby, A. (2013). Participation restriction, not fear of falling, predicts actual balance and mobility abilities in rural community-dwelling older adults. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 36(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1519/jpt.0b013e3182493d20.
2. Ballmer, T., Wirz, F., & Gantschnig, B. E. (2019). Assessing the quality of life and well-being of older adults with physical and cognitive impairments in a German-speaking setting: A systematic review of validity and utility of assessments / Die Erfassung von Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden älterer Menschen mit psychischen und kognitiven Einschränkungen: ein systematisches Literaturreview zur Validität und Praktikabilität deutschsprachiger Assessments. International Journal of Health Professions, 6(1), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2019-0014.
3. Bech, P. (1996). Health-related quality of life rating scales. In P. Bech (Ed.), Rating scales for psychopathology, health status, and quality of life: a compendium on documentation in accordance with the DSM-III‑R and WHO systems (pp. 395–424). New York: Springer.
4. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. (1996). Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories −IA and −II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 588–597.
5. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献