hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Cross-diagnostic validity of the Nottingham Health Profile Index of Distress (NHPD)
Faculty of Health and Society, Malmö University.
Department of Health Sciences, Lund University.
Department of Health Sciences, Lund University.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2174-372X
2008 (English)In: Health and quality of life outcomes, ISSN 1477-7525, Vol. 6, p. 47-Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: The Nottingham Health Profile index of Distress (NHPD) has been proposed as a generic undimensional 24-item measure of illness-related distress that is embedded in the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Data indicate that the NHPD may have psychometric advantages to the 6-dimensional NHP profile scores. Detailed psychometric evaluations are, however, lacking. Furthermore, to support the validity of the generic property of outcome measures evidence that scores can be interpreted in the same manner in different diagnostic groups are needed. It is currently unknown if NHPD scores have the same meaning across patient populations. This study evaluated the measurement properties and cross-diagnostic validity of the NHPD as a survey instrument among people with Parkinson's disease (PD) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

METHODS: Data from 215 (PD) and 258 (PAD) people were Rasch analyzed regarding model fit, reliability, differential item functioning (DIF), unidimensionality and targeting. In cases of cross-diagnostic DIF this was adjusted for and the impact of DIF on the total score and person measures was assessed.

RESULTS: The NHPD was found to have good overall and individual item fit in both disorders as well as in the pooled sample, but seven items displayed signs of cross-diagnostic DIF. Following adjustment for DIF some aspects of model fit were slightly compromised, whereas others improved somewhat. DIF did not impact total NHPD scores or resulting person measures, but the unadjusted scale displayed minor signs of multidimensionality. Reliability was > 0.8 in all within- and cross-diagnostic analyses. Items tended to represent more distress (mean, 0 logits) than that experienced by the sample (mean, -1.6 logits).

CONCLUSION: This study supports the within- and cross-diagnostic validity of the NHPD as a survey tool among people with PD and PAD. We encourage others to reassess available NHP data within the NHPD framework to further evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this simple patient-reported index of illness-related distress.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 6, p. 47-
National Category
Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-12373DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-47ISI: 000258030700001PubMedID: 18597691OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-12373DiVA, id: diva2:733118
Available from: 2014-07-08 Created: 2014-07-08 Last updated: 2014-09-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hagell, Peter

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hagell, Peter
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 11 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf