Psychometric Properties of the Death Anxiety Scale-Extended among Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Persian version of Death Anxiety Scale-Extended (DAS-E). A total of 507 patients with end-stage renal disease completed the DAS-E. The factor structure of the scale was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis with an oblique rotation and confirmatory factor analysis. The content and construct validity of the DAS-E were assessed. Average variance extracted, maximum shared squared variance, and average shared squared variance were estimated to assess discriminant and convergent validity. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α = .839 and .831), composite reliability (CR = .845 and .832), Theta (θ = .893 and .867), and McDonald Omega (Ω = .796 and .743). The analysis indicated a two-factor solution. Reliability and discriminant validity of the factors was established. Findings revealed that the present scale was a valid and reliable instrument that can be used in assessment of death anxiety in Iranian patients with end-stage renal disease.

The Effect of Educational Protocol Intended to Promote Illness Perception on Death Anxiety in Patients with Heart Failure: A Clinical Trial Study

“…The total score of this scale ranges from zero (lack of anxiety) to 15 (high anxiety), where high death anxiety=7-15, moderate death anxiety=6-7, and low death anxiety=0-6 [33]. Several Iranian studies used this scale, which reported its validity and reliability and mainly reported a Cronbach alpha greater than 0.8 [34]. In this study, a Cronbach alpha of 0.70 was obtained.…”

A Cross-Cultural Evaluation of the Construct Validity of Templer’s Death Anxiety Scale: A Systematic Review

“…The mean age of participants in the studies was 18.84 years (SD ¼ 1.08) to 51.7 years (SD ¼ 15.13). These studies were conducted in Iran (Rajabi & Bohrani, 2001;Sharif Nia et al, 2017;Sharif Nia et al, 2014;Sharif Nia, Pahlevan Sharif, et al, 2016;Soleimani, Pahlevan Sharif, Allen, & Sharif Nia, 2017;Soleimani, Yaghoobzadeh, Bahrami, Sharif, & Sharif Nia, 2016;Tavakoli & Ahmadzadeh, 2011), the United States (Royal & Elahi, 2011;Templer, 1970), Italy (Saggino & Kline, 1996), China (Yang et al, 2016), Egypt (Abdel-Khalek et al, 1993), Spain (Toma´s-Sa´bado & G omez-Benito, 2002), and Australia (Warren & Chopra, 1979). Data were collected from war Veterans (Sharif Nia et al, 2014; Family caregivers of cancer patients ), cancer patients in hospital oncology wards (Royal & Elahi, 2011;Soleimani, Lehto, et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2016), healthy university students (Abdel-Khalek et al, 1993;Rajabi & Bohrani, 2001;Tavakoli & Ahmadzadeh, 2011;Templer, 1970;Toma´s-Sa´bado & G omez-Benito, 2002;Warren & Chopra, 1979), volunteer subjects (Saggino & Kline, 1996), and cardiac patients (Soleimani, Pahlevan Sharif, et al, 2017) in hospital settings.…”

“…It is recognized that the factor extraction method can alter the structure of the covariance matrix. Two, three, four, and five factors were extracted in one (Royal & Elahi, 2011), seven (Saggino & Kline, 1996;Sharif Nia, Pahlevan Sharif, et al, 2017;Soleimani, Lehto, et al, 2016;Soleimani, Pahlevan Sharif, et al, 2017;Warren & Chopra, 1979), four (Sharif Nia et al, 2014;Sharif Nia, Pahlevan Sharif, et al, 2016;Toma´s-Sa´bado & G omez-Benito, 2002;Yang et al, 2016), and three studies Saggino and Kline (1996) 257 PCA þ varimax rotation 3 .752* Abdel- Khalek et al (1993) 428 PCA þ varimax rotation 5 Warren and Chopra (1979) 201 PCA þ varimax rotation 3 .65* Note. PCA ¼ principal factor analysis; ML ¼ maximum likelihood; DAS ¼ Death Anxiety Scale.…”

Validity and Reliability of Persian Version of the 12-Item Expectations Regarding Aging Survey Iranian Older Adults Population during COVID-19 Pandemic.

“…Next, we conducted the maximum likelihood con rmatory factor analysis (CFA) in accordance with the factor structure obtained from the EFA using second dataset (n = 200). The assessment of model t was based on several t indices such as Chi-square (χ 2 ) test, Chi-square/degree of freedom ratio (χ 2 /df) < 4, goodness-of-t index (GFI) >.90, comparative t index (CFI) >.90, incremental t index (IFI) >.90, normed t index (NFI) >.90, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) >.90, relative t index (RFI) >.90, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <.08, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) <.09 (36). Moreover, construct validity was assessed through convergent validity and discriminant validity.…”