Contextualising the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale in Hong Kong

Abstract

Published reports on the use of the Appraisal of Self-care Agency (ASA) Scale among Chinese people are scarce, the procedure of testing the ASA Scale is thus necessary before it is used clinically on Chinese population. The objective of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the ASA Scale on the Chinese population. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted in testing the Scale. A panel of 4 experts was invited to examine the content of the Scale and 128 elderly peoplefrom 3 elderly centers in Hong Kong were employed to examine its construct validity. Item analysis was conducted using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient to examine the reliability of the Scale. Content validity index of 0.88 was achieved resultingfrom the assessment of the 4 experts. Sevenfactors were extracted from the factor analysis representing approximately 70% of variance. The reliability coefficient for the entire Scale was 0.72. It was evident that the ASA Scale was a valid and reliable research instrumer that can be used in the Chinese communities.

Systematic review of measurement properties of self‐reported instruments for evaluating self‐care in adults

“…The internal consistency of ASA‐C rated negative because not all the factors obtained coefficients greater than 0·70 (Fok et al . ), whereas ASA‐R rated positive in both studies (Sousa et al . , Damásio & Koller ).…”

“…The content and structural validity of ASA‐C were both rated negative as only experts were involved in the validation process and the explained variance of PCA was less than 0·70 (Fok et al . ).…”

“…The Chinese version was adapted to the Chinese population (ASA‐C) (Fok et al . ) and comprised 26 instead of 24 items. ASA‐A was revised by Sousa et al .…”

“…Nine self-care instruments were identified: Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale (ASA-A) (Van Achterberg et al 1991, Lorensen et al 1993, S€ oderhamn et al 1996a,b, S€ oderhamn & Cliffordson 2001); Denyes Self-Care Practice Instrument (DSCPI-90) (Andrews et al 2009); Denyes Self-Care Agency Instrument (DSCAI) (McBride 1991); Exercise of Self-Care Agency (ESCA) (Kearney & Fleischer 1979, McBride 1987, 1991, Whetstone 1987, Whetstone & Hansson 1989, Yamashita 1998, Wang & Laffrey 2000; Lorensen's Self-care Capability Scale (LSCS) (Lorensen 1998, Dale et al 2013); Perceived Self-Care Agency Questionnaire (PSCAQ) (Weaver 1987, Bottorff 1988, McBride 1991; Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE) (S€ oderhamn et al 1996b(S€ oderhamn et al ,c, S€ oderhamn 2001(S€ oderhamn et al , Tomstad et al 2013); Self-as-Carer Inventory (SCI) (Geden & Taylor 1991); and Self-Care of Home-Dwelling Elderly (SCHDE) (R€ as€ anen et al 2007). Two further versions of ASA-A scale were identified: a short version (ASA-R) (Sousa et al 2010, Dam asio & Koller 2013; and a modified Chinese version (ASA-C) (Fok et al 2002).…”

The Appraisal of Self-Care Agency Scale - Revised (ASAS-R): adaptation and construct validity in the Brazilian context

“…This tool has been used and validated in several countries, including The Netherlands 14,17 , Norway 18 , Switzerland 19 , México 20 and Hong Kong 21 . Despite its widespread use, some authors have shown that the original version has a complex factor structure which may compromise the tool's construct validity.…”