Development and Cross-Validation of a Short Questionnaire to Evaluate Self-Reported Positive Health; A Cross Sectional Panel Study of Structural Validity Among a General Dutch Population

Lenny M.W. Nahar-van Venrooij; Margot J. Metz; Marja van Vliet; Vera P. van Druten; Babette C. van der Zwaard

doi:10.1101/2024.08.26.24312579

ABSTRACT

Objectives In this study it was aimed to further develop and cross-validate a short questionnaire to measure self-reported Positive Health in general (Dutch) populations for evaluative purposes, stemming from the original 42 items of the My Positive Health dialogue tool (MPH). Positive Health refers to ‘health from the perspective of patients and citizens’ following the concept of Huber et. al. Design and setting: A cross sectional study was performed among a panel representative for the general adult Dutch population living at home.

Participants Response rate was 76%, 1327 of a total of 2457 respondents were female, and mean age (year) was 53.3 ± 17.8.

Methods First, item reduction was carried out through content discussions following statistical output retrieved from factor structures and loadings, inter-item correlations (IIC) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas). Next, among the other half of the study population, measurement properties for the developed short questionnaire were calculated using goodness of fit indices from confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).

Results The item reduction process (n=1199) resulted in a questionnaire of 22 items (PH22) with a four-factor structure and explained variance of 62.4%. Cronbach’s alphas were 0.84, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.78 for the renamed factors ‘Physical fitness’ (5 items), ‘Contentment with life’ (9 items), ‘Daily life management’ (5 items) and ‘Future perspective’ (3 items), respectively. Cross validation (n=1258) showed adequate goodness of fit indices of the PH22, based on both first– and second-order CFA. The scores of the PH22 were normally distributed. No floor or ceiling effects were present.

Conclusions A short 22 item questionnaire to measure self-reported Positive Health in a general (Dutch) population for evaluative purposes such as scientific or policy research at Positive Health or patient-centered interventions was developed and cross-validated, named PH22. This study supports its structural validity. To use this questionnaire in practice its test-retest reliability and responsiveness should be known also. Future research has to reveal this.

Strengths and limitations of this study

The main strength of this study was that the choice to keep or remove an item during the development of the short Positive Health questionnaire was not only based on statistical output such as factor loadings, but combined with thorough content discussion by the expert team and judgement of inter-item correlations and internal consistency.
This study is robust in terms of its large sample size, the high response rate and the representativeness of the general Dutch population.
Development of the short Positive Health questionnaire was based on the items of the My Positive Health dialogue tool, which is widely used in the Netherlands.
It can be argued that content discussion is less objective or transparent to follow than statistical output. To overcome this, the results from the content discussion were thematized and each step of the item reduction process thoroughly reported.
Choices made by the expert team, might have been more support-based if more representatives were included in the content discussion, i.e., if focus groups were organized. Nevertheless, the members of the research team represent different backgrounds and relevant expertise. Moreover, it should be realized that the basic set of items of the My Positive Health dialogue tool was based on health indicators retrieved from a large study among various stakeholders and judged relevant.

Competing Interest Statement

MvV co-developed the MPH dialogue tool and works at the Institute for Positive Health.

Clinical Protocols

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-024-10356-3

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Medical Ethics Committee of Brabant (Tilburg, the Netherlands) reviewed this study and declared that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) did not apply to this study (study number NW2024-15).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The original dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) available from https://www.lissdata.nl/access-data upon request for researchers and policymakers.

https://www.lissdata.nl/access-data