Professional Documents
Culture Documents
uk/wrap
The Dutch/US evaluation of the DMSES covered Table 1 Initial version of the DMSES UK with 20 items
content and construct validity, internal consistency, I am confident that
and temporal stability. That process, involving a 1 I am able to check my blood/urine sugar if necessary
panel of experts within diabetes and self-efficacy, 2 I am able to correct my blood sugar when the sugar
resulted in the reduction of an original 42-item level is too high
scale to 20 items. The DMSES was translated from 3 I am able to correct my blood sugar when the blood
sugar level is too low
Dutch to US English as part of the scale develop- 4 I am able to choose the correct food
ment work. The construct validity of the scale was 5 I am able to choose different foods and stick to a
demonstrated through the findings of a positive healthy eating pattern
relationship in a second, US-based study, testing 6 I am able to keep my weight under control
7 I am able to examine my feet for cuts
the relationship between the self-efficacy scores of 8 I am able to take enough exercise, for example,
individuals living with diabetes and the self-efficacy walking the dog or riding a bicycle
scores of their significant other for supporting and 9 I am able to adjust my eating plan when ill
assisting them in the 20 self-management activities, 10 I am able to follow a healthy eating pattern most of
for example, ‘How confident are you that you could the time
11 I am able to take more exercise if the doctor advises
support and assist your significant other in choosing me to
the correct foods’ (Shortridge-Bagget and van der 12 When taking more exercise I am able to adjust my
Bijl, 2002). eating plan
13 I am able to follow a healthy eating pattern when I
am away from home
14 I am able to adjust my eating plan when I am away
Assessing face validity from home
Face validation of a DMSES for the UK started 15 I am able to follow a healthy eating pattern when I
by consulting with the Warwick Diabetes Research am on holiday
& Education User Group (WDREUG), a lay 16 I am able to follow a healthy eating pattern when I
am eating out or at a party
advisory group of 10–12 people living with diabetes, 17 I am able to adjust my eating plan when I am feeling
during two meetings over six months (Lindenmeyer stressed or anxious
et al., 2007). The WDREUG provided advice to 18 I am able to visit my doctor once a year to monitor
ensure appropriate use of vocabulary (eg, blood my diabetes
19 I am able to take my medication as prescribed
glucose monitoring) and concepts (eg, confidence), 20 I am able to adjust my medication when I am ill
which resulted in changes made to items, for
example, diabetic diet was replaced by healthy DMSES 5 diabetes management self-efficacy scale.
eating pattern. Following WDREUG consultation
and with regard to the literature (Donaldson, 2003)
the stem phrase ‘I am confident that y’ was used some days they might be more confident than
to precede each item in the 20-item DMSES UK. others. The scale instructions were determined with
The 20 UK items are described in Table 1. reference to Bandura’s guidance on the construc-
The five-point response scale used in the tion of self-efficacy scales and with regard to the
Dutch/US DMSES has a poorer predictive capa- opinions of the users (Bandura, 1997). The scale
city than a 0 to 10-point scale (Pajares et al., was intended for self-completion, in private, so clear
2001). The DMSES UK incorporated an 11-point instructions were an important aspect of the scale.
0–10 scale reflecting Bandura’s thesis (Bandura, The Flesch reading ease score (tool available in
2006). The WDREUG advised on the anchor Microsoft Office Word) for the DMSES UK was
point terms used in the scale, which were as fol- assessed as 82.9% or grade 2.6 equivalent to a
lows; 0–1 Cannot do at all, 4/5 Maybe yes maybe reading age of seven to eight years, and therefore
no, 9/10 Certain can do. The centre anchor point appropriate. This process of consultation in adapt-
recommended by Bandura is moderately certain ing the scale established high-face validity.
can do. The WDREUG felt this was ambiguous
and using Maybe yes, maybe no enabled a
responder to judge their certainty based on a Assessing content validity
collective experience of their perceived con- Once face validity was established we amended
fidence for a particular behaviour, indicating that the DMSES and content validity was assessed
4 Jackie Sturt, Hilary Hearnshaw and Melanie Wakelin
Table 2 Redundant items from initial 20-item DMSES UK validity of the DMSES UK was determined to be
of sufficient strength for the revised 15 item scale
Item Reason for redundancy to undergo further psychometric evaluation.
5 Item 5 (concerning choice and adherence) is an
amalgamation of item 4 (concerning choice) and
item 10 (concerning adherence), indicating limited Diabetes manual randomised controlled trial
value (RCT) and participants
8 Item 8 wording ‘enough exercise’ is a subjective
and interpretive question whereas adherence to Evaluation of the criterion and construct validity
‘doctor advice’ (item 11) is an appropriate self- and the reliability of the DMSES UK was under-
management activity for type 2 diabetes. Item 11 taken using data from the cluster randomised trial of
therefore retained the Diabetes Manual, a structured education pro-
14 Item meaning was closely related to item 13 and
offered no additional challenge in relation to type 2
gramme for type 2 diabetes undertaken from 2005
diabetes. Respondents were unable to distinguish to 2007 (Sturt et al., 2006a; 2006b; 2008). RCT par-
between ‘healthy eating pattern’ and ‘eating plan’ ticipants were 245 people with type 2 diabetes resi-
supporting the removal of item 14 dent across the West Midlands, UK. All participants
15 Being on holiday is a subset of being away from were recruited from primary care and randomised
home and respondents were unable to distinguish
between items 13 and 15. Respondents were to receive the diabetes manual intervention or a six-
unable to distinguish between healthy eating month deferred intervention. The diabetes manual is
pattern and eating plan. The removal of item 15 a self-management and structured education pro-
removed the duplication gramme to be used by practice nurses and patients
18 Access to annual GP care in the UK is a relatively
certain activity and suggests that item 18 does not
on a one to one basis. It consists of two-day facil-
lend itself to Likert scale measurement. This item itator training for the nurse, a patient workbook
was removed for recommended completion over three months, a
frequently asked questions CD, a relaxation CD, and
DMSES 5 diabetes management self-efficacy scale. three nurse-delivered telephone support calls. The
aim of the intervention is to strengthen the patient’s
with both people living with type 2 diabetes self-efficacy by developing skills and confidence in
and with diabetes health-care professionals. Thirty managing their diabetes, quickly, and progressively.
individuals attending two lay diabetes events in The intervention is theoretically underpinned by
2003, volunteered to complete the 20-item DMSES self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977).
UK with the available support of a researcher (JS/
HH). During completion the volunteers with type 2
diabetes identified duplications and ambiguities in RCT outcome measures
the scale, which were recorded in field notes. This Baseline data were collected from 245 partici-
process confirmed the views of the WDREUG. pants before randomisation and consisted of
Health professionals undergoing continuing HbA1c as the primary outcome and completion
professional development in diabetes care at the of a six-page questionnaire including the 15 item
Warwick Medical School were also consulted on DMSES UK, the 20 item problem areas in dia-
the validity of the constructs. Group discussions betes (PAID) scale (Polonsky et al., 1995), and
were held with three cohorts of professionals, 10 demographic questions. The PAID scale is a
approximately 20 people per cohort. This revealed 20-item measure of diabetes-specific emotional
ambiguity around a number of items and some distress; with a maximum score of 100 and higher
duplication. The professional and lay consultation scores indicting greater emotional distress. The
led to the removal of five items from the DMSES maximum score on the DMSES UK is 150 with
UK. Two items were ambiguous (items 8,18) and higher scores indicating higher self-efficacy. Since
three involved duplicate items or elements of higher self-efficacy is related to lower emotional
items (items 5,14,15) (Table 2). The health pro- distress (Fisher et al., 2007) a strong correlation
fessionals confirmed that the scale content was between low PAID scores (a gold standard),
sufficiently broad to cover the salient and chal- indicating low distress, and high scores on the
lenging aspects of self-managing type 2 diabetes DMSES UK, indicating high self-efficacy, would
giving high content validity. The face and content indicate criterion validity. Two hundred and
Validity and reliability of the DMSES UK scale 5
5
Eigenvalue
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Principal Component No.
Figure 1 Scree plot for baseline diabetes management self-efficacy scale (DMSES UK; n 5 175)
6 Jackie Sturt, Hilary Hearnshaw and Melanie Wakelin
Clinicians have a tool available, which has and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed
strong face validity, with both clinicians and (DESMOND) programme for people with newly
patients, to help identify in which areas of dia- diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled
betes self-management a patient’s self-efficacy is trial. BMJ 336, 491–95.
Day, J.L., Bodmer, C.W. and Dunn, O.M. 1997: Development
more or less secure. This will enable clinicians to
of a questionnaire identifying factors responsible for
coach the patients into goal choice areas, where
successful self-management of insulin-treated diabetes.
new behavioural challenges are more likely to Diabetic Medicine 13, 564–73.
be successful. Early success in new behavioural Department of Health. 2002: The national service framework
challenges will lead to strengthening of self-efficacy for diabetes standards document. London: Department of
in more challenging goals over time. Health.
Department of Health. 2005: Structured patient education in
diabetes: report from the patient education working group,
Acknowledgements 2005. London: Department of Health.
Donaldson, L. 2003: Expert patients usher in a new era of
opportunity for the NHS. BMJ 326, 1279–80.
The authors would like to thank the WDREUG, Farmer, A., Wade, A., French, D.P., Goyder, E., Kinmonth,
the people with type 2 diabetes and the health care A.L. and Neil, A. 2005: The DiGEM rial protocol – a
professionals who have participated in this study. randomised controlled trial to determine the effect on
Thanks are due to Professor Shortridge-Baggett glycaemic control of different strategies of blood glucose
and Dr van der Bijl for their collaborative engage- self-monitoring in people with type 2 diabetes
ment with this UK validation study. The study was [ISRCTN47464659]. BMC Family Practice 6, 1–8.
funded by Diabetes UK and the UK Department of Fisher, E.B., Thorpe, C.T., Devellis, B.M. and Devellis, R.F.
Health NCCRCD programme. 2007: Healthy coping, negative emotions, and diabetes
management: a systematic review and appraisal. Diabetes
Educator 33, 1080–103.
Gillis, A.J. 1993: Determinants of health promoting lifestyle;
References an integrative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 18,
545–53.
Anderson, R.M., Funnell, M.M., Fitzgerald, A.T. and Marrero, Guevara, J.P., Wolf, F.M., Grum, C.M. and Clark, N.M.
D.G. 2000: The diabetes empowerment scale: a measure of 2003: Effects of educational interventions for self manage-
psychosocial self-efficacy. Diabetes Care 23, 739–43. ment of asthma in children and adolescents: systematic
Bandura, A. 1977: Self-efficacy theory: towards a unifying review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 326,
theory of behaviour change. Psychological Review 84, 1308–309.
191–215. International Diabetes Federation. 2003: International standards
Bandura, A. 1994: Self-efficacy. In Ramachaudran, V.S., editor, for diabetes education. Retrieved 30 April 2009 from
Encyclopedia of human behavior. New York: Academic www.idf.org/webdata/docs/International%20standards.pdf
Press, 71–81. Lindenmeyer, A., Hearnshaw, H. and Sturt, J. 2007:
Bandura, A. 1997: Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health
York: Freeman. research from the warwick diabetes care research user
Bandura, A. 2006: Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. group: a qualitative case study. Health Expectations 10,
In Pajares, F. and Urdan, T. editors, Self-efficacy beliefs of 268–77.
adolescents. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing, Lloyd, C.E., Sturt, J., Johnson, M., Mughal, S., Collins, G. and
307–37. Barnett, A.H. 2008: Development of alternative methods
Bijl, V.J., Poelgeest-Eeltink, A.V. and Shortridge-Baggett, L. of data collection in South Asians with Type 2 diabetes.
1999: The psychometric properties of the diabetes Diabetic Medicine 25, 455–62.
management self-efficacy scale for patients with type 2 Lorig, K.R., Sobel, D.S., Stewart, A.L., Brown, B.W. Jr.,
diabetes mellitus. Journal of Advanced Nursing 30, 352–59. Bandura, A., Ritter, P., Gonzalez, V.M., Laurent, D.D. and
Dale, J., Caramlau, I., Sturt, J., Friede, T. and Walker, R. 2009: Holman, H.R. 1999: Evidence suggesting that a chronic
Telephone peer-delivered intervention for diabetes disease self-management programme can improve health
motivation and support: the telecare exploratory RCT. status whilst reducing hospitalisation. A randomised trial.
Patient Education and Counselling 75, 91–98. Medical Care 37, 5–14.
Davies, M.J., Heller, S., Skinner, T.C., Campbell, M.J., Carey, McDowell, J., Courtney, M., Edwards, H. and Shortridge-
M.E., Cradock, S., Dallosso, H.M., Daly, H., Doherty, Y., Bagget, H. 2005: Validation of the Australian/English
Eaton, S., Fox, C., Oliver, L., Rantell, K., Rayman, G. and version of the diabetes management self-efficacy scale.
Khunti, K. 2008: Effectiveness of the diabetes education International Journal of Nursing Practice 11, 177–84.
8 Jackie Sturt, Hilary Hearnshaw and Melanie Wakelin
Norris, S.L., Engelgau, M.M. and Venkat Narayan, K.M. 2001: action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical
Effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 exercise. Psychology and Health 20, 143–60.
diabetes. A systematic review of randomised controlled Sturt, J., Hearnshaw, H., Farmer, A., Dale, J. and Eldridge, S.
trials. Diabetes Care 24, 561–87. 2006a: The diabetes manual trial protocol – a cluster
Pajares, F., Hartley, J. and Valiante, G. 2001: Response format randomized controlled trial of a self-management
in writing self-efficacy assessment: greater discrimination intervention for type 2 diabetes [ISRCTN06315411].
increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in BMC Family Practice 7.45.
Counseling and Development 33, 214–21. Sturt, J., Taylor, H., Docherty, A., Dale, J. and Louise, T.
Polonsky, W.H., Anderson, B.J., Lohrer, P.A., Welch, G., 2006b: A psychological approach for providing self-
Jacobson, A.M., Aponte, J.E. and Schwartz, C.E. 1995: management education for people with type 2 diabetes:
Assessment of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes Care 18, the diabetes manual. BMC Family Practice 7.70.
754–60. Sturt, J.A., Whitlock, S., Fox, C., Hearnshaw, H., Farmer, A.J.,
Sentcal, C., Nouwen, A. and White, D. 2000: Motivation Wakelin, M., Eldridge, S., Griffiths, F. and Dale, J. 2008:
and dietary self-care in adults with diabetes: are self- Effects of the diabetes manual 1:1 structured education in
efficacy and autonomous self-regulation complemen- primary care. Diabetic Medicine 25, 722–31.
tary or competing constructs? Health Psychology 19, Van Der Ven, N.C., Weinger, K., Yi, J., Pouwer, F., Ader, H.,
452–57. Van Der Ploeg, H.M. and Snoek, F.J. 2003: The confidence
Shortridge-Bagget, L.M. and van der Bijl, J.J. 2002: in diabetes self-care scale: psychometric properties of a
Measurement of significant others self-efficacy in diabetes new measure of diabetes-specific self-efficacy in Dutch and
management. In Sigma Theta Tau International US patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 26, 713–18.
Conference, Brisbane. Welch, G., Weinger, K., Anderson, B. and Polonsky, W.H.
Sniehotta, F.F., Scholzu, U. and Schwarzer, R. 2005: Bridging 2003: Responsiveness of the problem areas in diabetes
the intention – behaviour gap: planning, self-efficacy, and (PAID) questionnaire. Diabetic Medicine 20, 69–72.