F Life Outcomes 2011, 9:92 http://www.hqlo.com/content/9/1/Page 3 ofTable 1 Assessments, information collection and analyses from the two studiesStage 1 Intent Time line Sociodemographic data (age, gender, ethnicity, education, marital and employment status) PMH instrument Item reduction April 2010 – Sep 2010 Stage 2 Validation Dec 2010 – Feb182 candidate item scale, 4 point Likert style response scale (1- not at all like me, 2 – some what like me, three – moderately like me, 4very a lot like me) Basic Overall Z-IETD-FMK biological activity health questionnaire EQ5D Basic happiness item General health item47-item scale, 6 point Likert style response scale PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20726384 (1- not at all like me, two incredibly slightly like me, 3 – slightly like me, 4- moderately like me, 5 – very considerably like me and 6- specifically like me) RSA MSPSS Brief Cope PGIS DSES SWEMWBS SWLS Basic happiness item General overall health item EQ5D VAS Healthier days measure PHQ -8 GAD -7 SDSOther measuresAnalysesMissing data, floor and ceiling impact EFA, CFA IRT-DIF Internal consistencyMissing information, floor and ceiling impact CFA IRT-DIF Internal consistency, Criterion validityCFA: Confirmatory Element Analysis; DSES:Daily Spirituality Encounter Scale; EFA:Exploratory Issue Analysis; EQ5D VAS: Euro-Quality of Life Scale Visual Analogue Scale; GAD-7:General Anxiety Disorder Scale; IRT- DIF:Item response theory and Differential item functioning; MSPSS:Multi-dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Assistance; PGIS:Individual Growth Initiative Scale; PHQ-8:Patient Overall health Questionnaire; RSA:Resilience Scale for Adults SDS: Sheehan Disability Scale; SWEMWBS:Short Warwick- Edinburg Mental Well-being Scale; SWLS: Satisfaction with Life Scalefour-point scale was expanded to a six-point scale following focus group discussions and cognitive testing. two. To avoid any social desirability bias and counter achievable floor/ceiling impact, throughout the second stage, interviewers issued the respondents a questionnaire in addition to a sealable envelope, instructing them to spot the completed questionnaire inside the envelope prior to collection. The questionnaires had been kept using the respondent and not completed at the time of recruitment, as this strategy allowed respondents ample time to full the questionnaire in privacy and reduced the likelihood of interviewer bias.Information collectionThe info collected within the distinctive stages integrated socio-demographic details about the participants, several questionnaires relating to domains ofmental overall health and well-being and validity measures. The intention to add this domain was to become able to derive comparisons with all the literature on `Affect’, which has been widely studied across various nations. 18 domain specific negatively worded filler products have been also randomly distributed throughout the instrument. The goal of including these products was to investigate pattern responses. These had been subsequently not incorporated in any analysis or scoring. three. PMH instrument (Stage 2): Following factor analysis in Stage 1, the final instrument comprised 47 positively worded items representing the six domains of mental wellness. Respondents have been presented together with the statements in conjunction with a 6-item response scale for 5 domains (except for `Global affect’ domain). They had been asked to choose a quantity showing how much the item described them on the scale, exactly where `1′ represented `not at all like me’, `2′ – pretty slightly like me’, `3′ – slightly like me, `4′ -`moderately like me’, `5′ – `very a great deal like me and `6′ corresponded to `exactly like me’. The `Global affe.
Posted inUncategorized