ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015
Measurement invariance of English and French Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) empowerment scales validated for cancer.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Effects of interdisciplinary teamwork on patient-reported experience of cancer care.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Validation of the dutch version of the health education impact questionnaire (HEIQ) and comparison of the Dutch translation with the English, German and French HEIQ.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Article
- Assessment of the feasibility and acceptability, and pre-test of the utility of an individualized survivorship care plan (ISCP) for women with endometrial cancers during the transition of the end of active treatment to cancer survivorship.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIf measurement invariance (MI) is demonstrated for a scale completed by respondents from two different language groups, it means that the scale measures the same construct in the same way in both groups. We assessed MI of the French- and English-language versions of the five Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) empowerment scales validated for the cancer setting.
methodsData came from two cross-sectional studies of Canadian cancer survivors (704 English, 520 French). Single-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test whether the hypothesized factor structure of the French-language heiQ empowerment scales fit the data. Multi-group CFAs were conducted to assess different levels of MI conditions (configural, metric, scalar, strict, as well as MI of factor variances, covariances, and latent means) of the French- and English-language heiQ empowerment scales.
resultsThe correlated five-factor model showed good fit in both language groups (goodness-of-fit indices: CFI ≥ .97; RMSEA ≤ .07). Goodness-of-fit indices and tests of differences in fit between models supported MI of the five-factor model across the two language groups (∆CFI ≤ -.010 combined with ∆RMSEA ≤ .015).
conclusionsThe French- and English-language heiQ empowerment scales measure the same five dimensions of empowerment in the same way across both language groups. Thus, any observed similarities or differences between French- and English-speaking respondents completing these scales are valid and reflect similarities or differences in empowerment across language groups, not measurement artifact. Consequently, heiQ empowerment data from English- and French-speaking respondents can be directly pooled or contrasted in data analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.