Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39443965›Full record

Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2024

Rasch analysis of the new general self efficacy scale: an evaluation of its psychometric properties in older adults with low vision.

Micaela Gobeille, Ava K Bittner, Alexis G Malkin, Jeffrey Ho, Cecilia Idman-Rait, Max Estabrook, Nicole C Ross, CARE Study Team

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04926974 (Community Access Through Remote Eyesight), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04926974 nacompletednot on this map

Community Access Through Remote Eyesight (CARE) Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew England College of OptometryRan2021 to 2023Enrolled145ConditionsLow VisionArmsLow Vision Rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Micaela GobeilleNew England College of Optometry, 424 Beacon St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA. gobeillem@neco.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7347-6304
Ava K BittnerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, Stein Eye Institute, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alexis G MalkinNew England College of Optometry, 424 Beacon St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jeffrey HoNew England College of Optometry, 424 Beacon St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Cecilia Idman-RaitNew England College of Optometry, 424 Beacon St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Max EstabrookDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, Stein Eye Institute, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nicole C RossNew England College of Optometry, 424 Beacon St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
CARE Study Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile general self-efficacy is known to relate to achievement in many areas, it has rarely been evaluated in individuals with low vision. Here we explore the psychometric properties and targeting of the New General Self Efficacy Scale (NGSES) using Rasch analysis in data collected from older adult clinical trial participants with low vision.

methodsParticipants (n = 121) completed pre-intervention telephone questionnaires (i.e., NGSES, Activity Inventory (AI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), SF-36, and the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS). Rasch analysis using the Method of Successive Dichotomizations (MSD) was applied to NGSES, AI, and BDI datasets to estimate person and item measures, and ordered rating category thresholds. NGSES infit mean square statistics and standard errors were analyzed to test whether data fit Rasch model requirements, and targeting was assessed by comparing distributions of person and item measures. Multiple linear regression evaluated the influence of participant characteristics on NGSES person measures.

resultsThere was a significant difference (p = 0.01) in the distributions of NGSES person measures (mean = 0.85, range -2.1-3.2) and item measures (mean = 0, range -1.0-0.72). Infit mean square statistics and standard errors for item and person measures conformed to expectations of the Rasch model. Greater NGSES person measure was related to lower BDI person measure (β = -0.48, p < 0.0005, 95% CI -0.67--0.28) and higher AI person measure (β = 0.11, p = 0.047, 95% CI 0.0013 - 0.22) after controlling for cognitive status (TICS). Other variables including SF-36, visual acuity, and patient demographics were not related to NGSES person measure.

conclusionsWhile NGSES person measures estimated from a low vision patient population conformed to basic Rasch model requirements, the significant differences in the person and item measure distributions indicate poor NGSES targeting, specifically a ceiling effect. Therefore, there is limited discrimination between persons at the upper end of the scale. While further work can evaluate how self-efficacy may be associated with other factors in the low vision patient population, the ceiling effect found in this study cautions interpretation of NGSES results for those with high general self-efficacy.

trial registrationPre-registered on clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04926974.

Indexed as

PsychometricsSelf EfficacyVision, LowAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesLow visionRasch analysisSelf-efficacyVisual impairment

Identifiers

PMID39443965
PMCPMC11515722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.