Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Validity and reliability of the Brain Health Self-Efficacy Scale for the elderly
  1. Yining Gao1,
  2. Ming Cui2,
  3. Chunyan Yang1,
  4. Yuejing Wu1,
  5. Yun Long1,
  6. Yaopian Chen1,
  7. Hongshen Liu1,
  8. Lin Sun1,
  9. Yinghua Yang3 and
  10. Xia Li1
  1. 1 Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  2. 2 Yinhang Community Health Center, Yangpu District, Shanghai, China
  3. 3 Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Xia Li; lixia11111{at}sjtu.edu.cn; Dr Yinghua Yang; 18616838682{at}163.com

Abstract

Background With the rapid increase in ageing population, China is confronted with the daunting challenge of a growing number of patients with neurocognitive disorders (NCDs). This trend makes the maintenance of self-health and early intervention essential, highlighting the need for a tool that assesses self-efficacy of older adults in maintaining brain health or cognitive function.

Aim This study aimed to design the Brain Health Self-Efficacy Scale (BHSES) to measure elderly individuals’ attitudes to NCDs, motivations and future plans for controlling risks. The psychometric properties of BHSES have been validated.

Methods Based on the current literature and relevant models, a 19-item scale was created during the first stage. A total of 660 older adults in the Yinhang community of Shanghai were included. The statistical approaches of item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), criterion-related validity and reliability test were used to evaluate the quality of BHSES. In addition, the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) were used as criteria to test the criterion-related validity.

Results To test item differentiation, the study adopted item analysis and excluded item 8. Selecting a random half of the sample for EFA, the BHSES was refined to 16 items, which were categorised into the following three dimensions: ‘memory belief efficacy’, ‘self-care efficacy’ and ‘future planning efficacy’. These were highly consistent with the hypothesis model. Its cumulative variance contribution rate reached 61.14%, with factor loads of all items above 0.5. The three-factor model was confirmed by the remaining data through CFA. All fit indices reached the acceptable level (χ2=3.045, Goodness of Fit Index=0.898, adjusted Goodness of Fit Index=0.863, Comparative Fit Index=0.916, Incremental Fit Index=0.917, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.900, root mean square error of approximation=0.079 and root mean residual=0.068). The GDS and SAS scores revealed significant correlations with the BHSES score, indicating a high criterion-related validity. The overall Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.793, with the α coefficients’ distribution of subdimensions ranging from 0.748 to 0.883.

Conclusions The 16-item, self-compiled BHSES is a reliable and valid measurement. It could help identify older adults with potential risks for developing NCDs or with high suspicion of cognitive impairment onset in recent periods and also offer insight into tracking brain health self-efficacy in association with cognition status.

  • geriatric psychiatry
  • health care quality, access, and evaluation
  • neurocognitive disorders
  • psychological tests
  • self report
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • YG and MC contributed equally.

  • Contributors YG and SZ analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. XL contributed to the study concept and design. MC, CY, YW, YL, YC, HL and LS collected the data. YY provided key comments and suggestions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by grants from the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2017YFC1310501) and the National Natural Science Foundation Committee (No. 81671402).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Shanghai Mental Health Center (2014-28).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement No additional data are available.