German version of the Death Attitudes Profile- Revised (DAP-GR) – translation and validation of a multidimensional measurement of attitudes towards death

Abstract

Background In Germany, only limited data are available on attitudes towards death. Existing measurements are complex and time consuming, and data on psychometric properties are limited. The Death Attitude Profile- Revised (DAP-R) captures attitudes towards dying and death. The measure consists of 32 items, which are assigned to 5 dimensions (Fear of Death, Death Avoidance, Neutral Acceptance, Approach Acceptance, Escape Acceptance). It has been translated and tested in several countries, but no German version exists to date. This study reports the translation of the Death Attitudes Profile-Revised (DAP-R) into German (DAP-GR) using a cross-cultural adaption process methodology and its psychometric assessment. Methods The DAP-R was translated following guidelines for cultural adaption. A total of 216 medical students of the Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf participated in this study. Interrater reliability was investigated by means of Kendall’s W concordance coefficient. The internal consistency of the DAP-GR Scales was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Split-half reliability was estimated using Spearman-Brown coefficients. Convergent validity was measured by Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Content validity was assessed by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 24 and AMOS 22. Results The items showed fair to good interrater reliability, with W-values ranging from .30 to .79. Internal consistency of the five subscales ranged from .61 (Neutral Acceptance) to .94 (Approach Acceptance). Split-half reliability was good, with a Spearman-Brown-coefficient of .83. The results of CFA slightly diverged from the original scale. Conclusion Our results suggest overall good reliability of the German version of the DAP-R. The DAP-GR promises to be a robust instrument to establish normative data on death attitudes for use in German-speaking countries.

Death Anxiety and Concept of Good Death in the Elderly

“…In our literature review and research results, we have found that some topics on the idea of good death were the same for all societies and all segments of society. During the examinations of the answers to questions about the concept of good death in the clinical subdimension of the good death scale used in our study, we found that the highest score was received for the option "having a painless or substantially painless death" (3.92±0.81) (19)(20)(21)(22), which was consistent with the literature, while the highest score in the personal control subdimension was received for the option "ability to communicate until death" (3.47±0.83) (21,23), and in the psychosocial and spiritual dimension "having an opportunity to say goodbye to loved ones" (3.93±0.61) (2,12,20); these results are consistent with the literature.…”

The existential dimension of the pandemic: Death attitudes, personal worldview, and coronavirus anxiety

“…To assess different attitudes toward death, the Death Attitude Profile-Revised (Wong et al, 1994) was employed in its German translation (DAP-GR, Jansen et al, 2019). It consists of five subscales, assessing death anxiety ("The prospect of my own death arouses anxiety in me," 7 items, a ¼ .92), death avoidance ("I avoid death thoughts at all costs," 5 items, a ¼ .93), neutral acceptance ("Death should be viewed as a natural, undeniable, and unavoidable event," 5 items, a ¼ .64), approach acceptance ("I believe that I will be in heaven after I die," 10 items, a ¼ .93), and escape acceptance ("Death will bring an end to all my troubles," 5 items, a ¼ .84).…”

Development and preliminary validation of the competency model for rural general practitioner in China

“…Split-half reliability was estimated using the Spearman–Brown coefficient. Correlations between the subscales were analysed by Spearman’s correlation coefficient as the data were not normally distributed ( 29 ). In general, a split-half reliability coefficient >0.75 was excellent and <0.40 was poor ( 30 ).…”