Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31247700›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry investigation2019

Reliability and Validity of a Turkish Version of the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire.

Mehmet Emrah Karadere, Kaasım Fatih Yavuz, Ece Yazla Asafov, Ferit Kerim Küçükler

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mehmet Emrah KaradereDepartment of Psychiatry, Hitit University Faculty of Medicine, Corum, Turkey.
Kaasım Fatih YavuzDepartment of Psychology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ece Yazla AsafovDepartment of Psychiatry, Hitit University Faculty of Medicine, Corum, Turkey.
Ferit Kerim KüçüklerDepartment of Endocrinology, Hitit University Faculty of Medicine, Corum, Turkey.
Hitit Üniversitesi · TRIstanbul Medipol University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study is to perform validity and reliability examination of the Turkish form of Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire, and to investigate whether this scale is a measurement tool for evaluation of psychological flexibility levels in a sample of patients with diabetes in Turkey.

methodsThis study was conducted with 105 patients. Turkish forms of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Problem Areas in Diabetes Questionnaire (PAID), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I and STAI-II), Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL) and Turkish form of Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire (TAADQ) were applied. SPSS 20.0 and AMOS was used in statistical analysis.

results56.12% of the patients were female and the mean of age was 54 (SD=±9.9) years. The mean duration of education was found 7.65 (SD=3.97) years. 74.8% of the patients most of whom (83.3%, n=85) had diabetes mellitus and the mean glycemic control calculated with HbA1c was 8.02±1.91. According to the final fit indices, we found that the revised and corrected 9-item model was superior over the previous model. Cronbach Alpha coefficient of TAADQ was found as 0.836.

conclusionTAADQ is a valid and reliable assessment tool in Turkish population. So TAADQ will be a powerfull tool in assessing psychological flexibility in diabetes patients.

Indexed as

Acceptance and actionDiabetesReliability and validityTurkish version

Identifiers

PMID31247700
PMCPMC6603703
OpenAlexW2953596055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.