Taiwanese translation and psychometric testing of the revised illness perception questionnaire for patients with traumatic injury

Abstract

Translation of the instrument into Chinese extends its utility to the traumatic injury population. Awareness of patients' illness representations can help clinicians provide appropriate interventions to patients.

Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the Illness Perception Questionnaire–Revised for women with stress urinary incontinence

“…Another study examined the factor structure of the IPQ‐R in patients with traumatic injury by also using a six‐factor structure, which explained 60.30% of the total item variance in the scale after removing eight items. This was very similar to the original scale . In contrast, a recent study investigating the factor structure of the Chinese IPQ‐R for substance dependence among injecting drug users found that the original IPQ‐R factor structure fit the data poorly and factors derived from an EFA also could not be interpreted .…”

Psychometric Properties of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire for Oral Health

“…Furthermore, item Tr_CR19 ("There is very little that can be done to improve my dental problem") did not load on any factor. Previous studies also removed item 19 [Cabassa et al, 2008;Chen et al, 2008;Abubakari et al, 2012] or did not include it in any factor [Wittkowski et al, 2008;Chaboyer et al, 2012]. This may be explained by people's beliefs that caries is a minor problem that can be controlled by dentists and that people cannot do anything to prevent or handle it.…”

“…On the other hand, item Tr_CR23 ("There is nothing which can help my dental problem") fit to factor 7 (illness coherence). Chaboyer et al [2012] found that item Tr_Cr23 loaded on the illness coherence factor, which is probably because individuals who do not understand their dental problem may perceive their problem does not have a solution. Finally, the remaining items of the timeline-acute/chronic factor conformed to the timeline-chronic exclusive factor, and the consequences factor only lost 1 item (C8), an issue that was previously noted.…”

“…When considering all questionnaires in the current scientific literature to evaluate the structure, some have shown the existence of 5 [Cabassa et al, 2008] or 6 [Wittkowski et al, 2008] dimension solutions or minor adjustments to the original structure [Chaboyer et al, 2012]. From the hypothesis of the association between the items and the theoretical constructs, model II, integrated by 36 items organized in 7 factors (1 of which was new -hopelessness -and another 5 factors had some variations from the original model) presented more satisfactory indices with respect to the goodness-of-fit [Hooper et al, 2008;Dempster and McCorry, 2012].…”

“…However, 5-or 6-dimension factor structures of the IPQ-R have been found by other authors [Cabassa et al, 2008;Wittkowski et al, 2008;Chaboyer et al, 2012]. Since these characteristics of the instrument have not been tested in a population with dental caries, such an evaluation is needed.…”