Testing the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Heart Failure Learning Needs Inventory

Assessment of patient information needs: A systematic review of measures

“…Last is the Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) which had been tested in seven European countries [30] and had been partly reported for the Dutch version in an earlier publication [28]. While twelve measures focus on cancer or cancer treatment information [24–26, 29, 32–34, 38–42], four assess patient information needs related to heart disease [22, 35, 36, 43] and one instrument each on information needs regarding chronic kidney disease [23], arthritis [27], rheumatic diseases [30], HIV [44] and at discharge from hospital in general [9]. All measures are multi-dimensional and range from nine items [26] to 55 items [36].…”

“…Internal consistency was calculated in 21 out of 24 included studies. Only six of them received a “fair” score [9, 29, 30, 37, 43, 44], while 15 scored “poor” [22, 24, 25, 28, 31–36, 38–42]. The second most commonly assessed property was content validity, which was assessed in 17 studies.…”

“…Eleven of those studies received a “poor” [27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38–40, 42–44], five a “fair” [9, 23–25, 31, 41] and one a “good” score [26] for content validity. Structural validity was assessed in nine studies, with six scoring “poor” [9, 24, 25, 33, 38, 42] and three scoring “fair” [29, 43, 44]. Scores for reliability were “poor” in three studies [22, 36, 41] and “fair” for four studies [27, 37, 43, 44].…”

“…Structural validity was assessed in nine studies, with six scoring “poor” [9, 24, 25, 33, 38, 42] and three scoring “fair” [29, 43, 44]. Scores for reliability were “poor” in three studies [22, 36, 41] and “fair” for four studies [27, 37, 43, 44]. Of the six studies evaluating cross-cultural validity, only one was rated as “poor” [43], while two scored “fair” [28, 30], two received a “good” [22, 37] and one an “excellent” [42] score.…”

“…Scores for reliability were “poor” in three studies [22, 36, 41] and “fair” for four studies [27, 37, 43, 44]. Of the six studies evaluating cross-cultural validity, only one was rated as “poor” [43], while two scored “fair” [28, 30], two received a “good” [22, 37] and one an “excellent” [42] score. Hypothesis testing was done in four studies, of which two performed “poorly” [29, 34] and two were rated as “good” [30, 44].…”