Translation and validation of the Arabic version of the Self-care of Heart Failure Index
Hiba Deek PhD candidate, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo NSW, Australia
Sungwon Chang Chancellor’s post-doctoral research fellow, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo NSW, Australia
Samar Noureddine MSN adult care track coordinator, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
Phillip J Newton Director research students, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo NSW, Australia
Sally C Inglis Senior research fellow, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo NSW, Australia
Peter S Macdonald Medical director, St Vincent’s Heart Transplant Unit, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
Ghina Al Arab Hospital educator, Al Moosa Specialist Hospital, Alfaisal District, Saudi Arabia
Patricia M Davidson Dean, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MA
Background Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome with high demands for self-care. The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) was developed to measure self-care and has demonstrated robust psychometric properties across populations.
Aim To assess the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the SCHFI (A-SCHFI).
Discussion The scores of the A-SCHFI administered to 223 Lebanese patients with heart failure were used to validate this instrument. Face and content validity, assessed by a panel of experts, were found sufficient. The three constructs of the A-SCHFI explained 37.5% of the variance when performing exploratory factor analysis. Adequate fit indices were achieved using the modification procedure of controlling error terms with the confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability coefficient was adequate in the maintenance, management and confidence scales.
Conclusion Following adaptation, the modified A-SCHFI was shown to be a valid and reliable measure of self-care among the Lebanese population.
Implications for practice Cross-cultural adaptation is a rigorous process involving complex procedures and analyses. The adaptation of the A-SCHFI should be further analysed, including sensitivity and test-retest analysis, with methods to assess the degree of agreement among the panel.
24, 2, 34-40.
This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software
Conflict of interest
Received: 01 December 2015
Accepted: 25 April 2015
Want to read more?
Subscribe for unlimited access
Try 1 month’s access for just £1 and get:
Your subscription package includes:
- Full access to the website and the online archive
- Quaterly digital edition
- RCNi Portfolio and interactive CPD quizzes
- RCNi Learning with 200+ evidence-based modules
- 10 articles a month from any other RCNi journal
Already subscribed? Log in
Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now