Psychometric Properties of the High-Need Community-Dwelling Older Adults Screening Scale-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Psychometric Properties of the High-Need Community-Dwelling Older Adults Screening Scale

Published:2021-08-13 Issue:2 Volume:31 Page:284-291
ISSN:1054-7738
Container-title:Clinical Nursing Research
language:en
Short-container-title:Clin Nurs Res

Author:

Chen Kuei-Min¹²^ORCID,Chen Meng-Chin³,Hsu Hui-Fen¹,Belcastro Frank⁴,Chang Wei-Yun²

Affiliation:

1. Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

2. Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

3. Yuh-Ing Junior College of Health Care and Management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

4. University of Dubuque, IA, USA

Abstract

This study aimed to verify the factorial structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity of the High-need Community-dwelling Older Adults Screening Scale (HCOASS). A 20-item HCOASS covering five domains was used with a systematic random sample of 818 community-dwelling older adults. After the analyses, the Exploratory Factor Analysis suggested a removal of two items, resulting in 5 domains with 18 items, and the Confirmatory Factor Analysis yielded satisfactory results with Goodness of Fit Index of .98. The HCOASS demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 α = .75) and excellent test-retest reliability (0.94; 95% CI [0.91, 0.97]). The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.90 (95% CI [0.84, 0.95]) and the optimal cut-off score was 4/5. The HCOASS is a valid and reliable screening tool. It has the potential for consistent and efficient administration to be used by non-healthcare professionals in the community.

Funder

Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Nursing

Link

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10547738211036812

Reference29 articles.

1. Barrett P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018

2. Bartlett M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x

3. Chen C. Y., Wu S. C., Chen L. J., Lue B. H. (2010). The prevalence of subjective frailty and factors associated with frailty in Taiwan. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 50(Suppl. 1), S43–S47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4943(10)70012-1

4. Chen M. C., Chen K. M., Wang J. J., Hsu H. F. (2020). Development of a screening scale for community-dwelling older adults with multiple care needs. Clinical Gerontologist, 43(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2020.1716127

5. Chong D. S., Karlberg J. (2004). Refining the Apgar score cut-off point for newborns at risk. Acta Paediatrica, 93(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb00674.x