Adaptation and validation of the HIV Knowledge Questionnaire-18 for the general population of Indonesia

Abstract

Background Despite a global decline in new HIV/AIDS cases in low-middle countries, cases are increasing in Indonesia. Low knowledge about the disease among the general population is one of the major factors responsible for this trend. Indonesia does not have a validated instrument to assess HIV/AIDS knowledge. The HIV Knowledge Questionnaire-18 (HIV-KQ-18) has been translated into several languages and is one of the most extensively used instruments for assessing HIV/AIDS knowledge. This paper describes the process of adapting and validating the HIV-KQ-18, an instrument to assess the level of HIV/AIDS knowledge in the general population of Indonesia. Methods In the adaptation phase, feedback for the initial Bahasa Indonesia version was gathered from two HIV activists, an obstetrician, two general practitioners, and 60 pilot participants. At the validation stage, we distributed the instrument link via Google Form to 6 major regions in Indonesia. Validity was measured using known-group validity and construct validity. The construct validity was assessed using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a polychoric correlation matrix. Cronbach’s alpha was used to analyze the internal consistency. Results Based on the findings in the adaptation phase, additional descriptions (namely synonyms or examples) were added to 6 items to make them more understandable. In the validation phase, 1,249 participants were recruited. The a priori hypothesis in known-group validity was supported. We also found three items that did not meet the construct validity. Based on the acceleration factor approach to interpret the scree tree in the factor analysis, using only two factors was preferable. Cronbach's alpha values were 0.75 and 0.71 representing good internal reliability. Conclusion The HIV-KQ-18 Bahasa Indonesia is considered a valid and reliable instrument to assess the level of HIV/AIDS knowledge in Indonesia.

The Knowledge Mapping of Hiv/aids in Indonesians Living on Six Major Islands Using the Indonesian Version of the Hiv-kq-18 Instrument

“…In total, there were 5,364 participants in this study. This number of participants was almost 5 times higher than the number of participants in the Indonesian adaptation and validation study of the HIV-KQ-18 instrument [11]. The socio-demographic characteristics revealed that about 60% of the participants were between the ages of 17 and 25.…”

“…For participants who answered 'don't know, a score of 0 was also counted. This instrument has been validated into Bahasa Indonesia and has passed the "cross cultural adaption" test [11]. Notably, Prof. Michael P. Carey, Ph.D., has given his approval for the license to use this instrument (via email on February 11, 2020).…”

“…Currently, the HIV Knowledge Questionnaire-18 items (HIV KQ-18) is an instrument that has been used to measure the level of HIV/AIDS knowledge of a person or community [9,10]. This instrument is stable, internally consistent, sensitive to change resulting from intervention, and suitable for the lowliteracy community [11,12].…”

“…The rst objective of this study was to map the level of HIV-related knowledge among Indonesians who live on the six major islands in Indonesia, using the Bahasa Indonesian version of the HIV-KQ-18 instrument [11]. Secondly, this study also aimed to investigate the relationship between various determinants, such as socio-demographic characteristics, and HIV/AIDS knowledge.…”

Validity and reliability of the Indonesian Version of HIV-KQ-18 in assessing public knowledge about HIV/AIDS in the special region of Yogyakarta

“…The study began by contacting the developer of the HIV-KQ-18, Professor Michael P. Carey and he has given permission and expressed support for the validation testing of the same instrument for the Indonesian general population (Arifin et al, 2022). Therefore, this study was a part of larger study by (Arifin et al, 2022), although this study's focus was solely on D.I Yogyakarta (Yogyakarta Province). The fact that the two studies' data collecting was undertaken concurrently should be noted (but the respondents and the databases were also different).…”