Developing an Exercise Attitudes and Behavior Intentions Questionnaire for Survivors of Aortic Dissection: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

Abstract

Our study aimed to develop a questionnaire to assess the reliability and validity of exercise attitudes and behavior intentions among survivors of an aortic dissection (AD). Methods: There were two phases to the study between April 2021 and April 2022. Phase I involved the development of an initial version of the Exercise Attitudes and Behavior Intentions Questionnaire (EABIQ) through literature reviews, qualitative interviews, Delphi expert consultations and a pre-experimental study. During Phase II, the reliability and validity of the questionnaire was assessed in 160 survivors with AD. Results: A 62-item EABIQ for AD survivors was developed. Eleven common components with eigenvalues larger than 1 were identified by exploratory factor analysis. The scale's variance explained cumulatively rate was 75.216%. The content validity index at the item level for the EABIQ varied from 0.813 to 1.000 and the S-CVI/Ave was 0.934. The correlation coefficients between each scale dimension and the overall scale ranged from 0.405 to 0.785, with all p-values less than 0.05. Cronbach's alpha for the whole scale was 0.929, with Cronbach's alpha for each domain ranging from 0.835 to 0.965. The overall scale split-half reliability coefficient was 0.960, with each domain's split-half reliability coefficient ranging from 0.844 to 0.962. Conclusions:The AD exercise attitudes and behavior intentions questionnaire has high reliability and validity and is generally consistent with the hypothetical theoretical framework. It can be used as a judgment tool to measure the exercise behavior for AD patients.

Validez de contenido de un instrumento de medición para medir el éxito en la implementación del TPM

“…Por lo tanto, no es posible determinar si la discrepancia observada en cada ítem se debe al azar (Almanasreh et al, 2019). A pesar de su incapacidad para discriminar los efectos de la aleatoriedad en la evaluación de la concordancia en el juicio de los expertos, estos métodos aún se aplican para validar el contenido de los IM (Carlton et al, 2022;Feng et al, 2022;Ma et al, 2023;Reick et al, 2023). Es decir, desde un punto de vista estadístico, los resultados obtenidos al evaluar la validez de contenido de un IM con estos métodos son cuestionables.…”

How to help aortic dissection survivors with recovery?: A health promotion program based on the comprehensive theory of health behavior change and literature review

“…The degree of familiarity was divided into very familiar, more familiar, average, less familiar, and unfamiliar, with values of 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, and 0, respectively. [13]…”