Structural validity and test-retest reliability of the Patient Reported Inventory of Self-Management of Chronic Conditions (PRISM-CC) in a Swedish population of seventy-year-olds with long-term health conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-management is internationally recognized as important to maintain independence, quality of life and to minimize the risk of poor health outcomes, especially among persons with multi-morbidity. Self-management can be especially challenging for older adults, who have higher rates of multi-morbidity and experience diverse impacts of long-term health conditions on everyday life. Good measures of self-management are currently lacking. The Patient Reported Inventory of Self-Management of Chronic Conditions (PRISM-CC) is a new, generic, multidimensional measure of self-perceived ease or difficulty with self-management, that overcomes many of the limitations of existing measures. OBJECTIVES: To test the structural validity and test-retest reliability of the Swedish version of the PRISM-CC among seventy-year-olds with long-term health conditions. METHODS: Translation of PRISM-CC items into Swedish followed the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium process. Survey data (n = 516 Swedish seventy-year-olds with ≥1 long-term health condition) was used to assess structural validity of the 36-item PRISM-CC using multidimensional item response theory (IRT) models. Test-retest reliability was assessed on a subsample of 58 individuals using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman Plots. RESULTS: The Swedish PRISM-CC demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha >0.8 for all domains, and good fit to a graded response IRT model (RMSEA 0.034, SRMSR 0.050, CFI 0.952 and TLI 0.945). All 36 items had standardized loadings >0.7. ICC showed moderate to good test-retest reliability for all seven domains. The Bland-Altman plots showed minimal bias and good test-retest agreement for all domains. CONCLUSION: The Swedish PRISM-CC showed good structural validity and test-retest reliability in this sample of relatively healthy seventy-year-olds with long-term health condition(s). Further validation in a population with more severe health issues is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".