Psychometric Testing of the Indonesian Version of Dietary Sodium Restriction Questionnaire Among Patients with Hypertension

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to test the validity and reliability of the Indonesian version of the Dietary Sodium Restriction Questionnaire (DSRQ-I) among patients with hypertension. Methods: The cross-sectional study enrolled hypertensive patients from a cardiac outpatient department in Indonesia using convenience sampling. Eligible patients received a demographic questionnaire and DSRQ-I during a one-month period of data collection. Content and construct analysis examined the validity, whereas internal consistency assessment checked reliability. Participation required 10e 15 minutes on average. Results: One hundred thirty-five patients participated: mostly females (54.1%) and married (82.9%) with mean age of 58.18 ± 10.44 years. The item of content validity index was .97, and subscale content validity index was .81 for DSRQ-I. The KaisereMeyereOlkin test gave a value of .83, indicating adequate sampling, and the Bartlett's test of sphericity reached significant result (p < .001). The principal component analysis indicated three components, with 64.2% explaining variance, including perceived behavioral control (35.5%), attitude (19.3%), and subjective norm (9.4%). Confirmatory factor analysis produced a parsimonious model on the three-factor outcome by removing a single item. The indices of good fit model was achieved at c 2 /df ¼ 2.17, goodness fit index ¼ .85, root mean square error of approximation ¼ .09, standardized root mean square means ¼ .07, and Bentler comparative fit index ¼ .90 (p < .001). Cronbach's alpha coefficients for attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control were .85, .87, and .85, respectively. All interitem and item-total correlations indicated adequate outcome and acceptable result. Consequently, 15 items were determined reliable measurement and included in the final version of DSRQ-I. Conclusion:The DSRQ-I is a valid and reliable instrument to measure facilitators and barrier of sodium restriction among hypertensive patients in Indonesia.

The Indonesian version of the Medical Outcome Survey ‐ Short Form 12 version 2 among patients with cardiovascular diseases

“…All the evident supporting data were adequate, and they confirmed the pattern of relationship. The explained variance reached adequate percentage, and the nonredundant residual was less than 0.50; then, the small residuals on matrix were achieved, which showed a good fit model (Wicaksana & Wang, ; Yong & Pearce, ). The dataset suggested that eight elements construct the factors.…”

“…The amendment of the instrument was generally accepted while adopting the cross-cultural process of the targeted culture or population (Polit & Beck, 2006). Some required removing or reducing the item without missing the main idea (Wicaksana & Wang, 2018).…”

“…The experts consisted of a cardiologist, an epidemiologist, and clinical cardiovascular nurses. In terms of checking the clarity, equivalency, readability, and relevancy of the items, the experts scored the questionnaire using a four‐point Likert scale, with 1 = not clear/relevant, 2 = somehow clear/relevant, 3 = quite clear/relevant, and 4 = highly clear/relevant (Wicaksana & Wang, ).…”

Palliative care quiz for nurses-Indonesian version (PCQN-I): A cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability study

“…The experts were asked to assess the relevancy and clarity of each item using a four-point scale (1 = not relevant/not clear, 2 = somewhat relevant/item requires some revision, 3 = quite relevant/clear but requires minor revision, and 4 = highly relevant/very clear). 22,23 The CVI was calculated for item-level CVI (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI/Ave (S-CVI/Ave). 23 To obtain I-CVI, the number of experts who gave a rating score of 3 or 4 was divided by the total number of experts, which ranged from 0.00 to 1.00.…”

“…23 To obtain I-CVI, the number of experts who gave a rating score of 3 or 4 was divided by the total number of experts, which ranged from 0.00 to 1.00. 22,23 The S-CVI/Ave was calculated by averaging the I-CVIs. 23 At least an I-CVI of 0.78 is considered as an acceptable value, whereas an S-CVI/Ave with an average value approaching 0.90 or higher is considered to indicate excellent content validity.…”