Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 93, Issue 4, pp 271–275 | Cite as

Évaluation de la fiabilité et de la validité d’un instrument de mesure de l’activation communautaire

  • Dieudonné Jean-Baptiste
  • Mustapha Berre
  • Louise Potvin
Article

Résumé

Objectif: Cet article étudie les propriétés psychométriques d’une mesure de l’activation communautaire utilisée dans l’évaluation du volet québécois de l’Initiative fédéraleprovinciale en santé du coeur. Cette mesure comporte 3 échelles, une pour chaque cible d’intervention.

Méthode: Les données ont été collectées par enquête téléphonique auprès de 199 informateurs-clé issus des 24 communautés du projet. Le coefficient alpha de Cronbach et la corrélation intraclasse ont permis d’étudier la fiabilité des échelles, leur validité a été estimée par analyses factorielles exploratoires.

Résultats: L’instrument présente une bonne consistance interne avec des coefficients alphas de Cronbach variant de 0,71 à 0,83. Les coefficients de corrélation intraclasse sont très faibles (−0,04 à 0,11). Les analyses factorielles indiquent une structure unidimensionnelle pour chaque échelle.

Interprétation: Ces résultats indiquent que l’instrument semble bien mesurer les opinions des informateurs mais qu’une classification des communautés à partir d’un score obtenu par l’agrégation des opinions d’informateurs d’une même communauté pourrait être problématique.

Abstract

Objective: This study examines psychometric properties of a community activation assessment scale used for the evaluation of the Quebec project within the Federal Provincial Heart Health Initiative. The scale is composed of three sub scales, one for each of the intervention target risk factors.

Methods: Data were collected by telephone interviews conducted with 199 key informants from the 24 communities of the project. Reliability was studied using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and intraclass correlations. Validity was explored with factor analysis techniques.

Results: Subscales’ internal consistency were very good, ranging from 0.71 to 0.83, but intraclass correlations between informants from the same communities were low. Factor analyses indicated a unidimensional structure for each scale.

Interpretation: These results show that the scale seems to provide reasonable assessments of the opinion of key informants regarding activation in their community. However, ranking communities based on the aggregated scores from local key informants may lead to classification problems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Kottke TE, Puska P, Salonen JT, Tuomilehto J, Nissinen A. Projected effects of high risk versus population-based prevention strategies in cardiovascular diseases. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shea S, Basch, CE. A review of five major community-based CVD prevention programs. Part I: Rationale, design and theoretical framework. Am J Health Prom 1990;80:203–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wagner EH, Koepsell TD, Anderman C, Cheadle A, Curry SG, Psaty BM, et al. The evaluation of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation’s Community Health Promotion Grant Program: Design. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:685–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Puska P, Nissinen A, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT, Koskela K, McAlister A, et al. The communitybased strategy to prevent coronary heart disease: Conclusions from the ten years of the North Karelia Project. Annu Rev Public Health 1985;6:147–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farquhar J, Fortmann SP, Flora JA, Taylor CB, Haskell WA, Williams PT, et al. Effects of community wide education on cardiovacular disease risk factors. The Stanford Five City Project. JAMA 1990;264:359–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rose G. The Strategy of Preventive Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blackburn H. Research and demonstration projects in community cardiovascular disease prevention. J Public Health Policy 1983;4:398–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puska P, Salonen JT, Tuomilehto J, Nissinen A, Kottke, TW. Evaluating community-based preventive cardiovascular programs: Problem and experiences from the North Karelia Project. J Community Health 1983;11:49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patrick D, Wickizer, TM. Community and health, Dans: Amick III BJ, Levine S, Tarlov AR, Chapman Walsh D (Eds.), Society and Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995;46–96.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fulbright-Anderson K, Kubisch AC, Connell JP. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Vol 2: Theory, Measurement and Analysis. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boutilier M, Cleverly S, Labonte R. Community as a setting for health promotion, Dans: Poland BD, Green LW, Rootman I (Eds.), Settings for Health Promotion. Linking Theory and Pratice. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2000;250–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winkleby, MA. The future of community-based cardiovascular disease interventions studies. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1369–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Multiple Risk Factors Intervention Trial Research Group. Mortality rates after 10.5 years for participants in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: Findings related to a priori hypothesis of the trial. JAMA 1990;263:1795–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Puska P. Changes in coronary risk factors during comprehensive community programme to control cardiovascular diseases during 1972–7 in North Karelia. BMJ 1979;2(6199):1173–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salonen, JT. Changes in morbidity and mortality during comprehensive community programme to control cardiovascular diseases during 1972–7 in North Karelia. BMJ 1979;2(6199):1178–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rose G, Pedoe-Tunstall HD, Heller, FR. UK Heart Disease Prevention Project: Incidence and mortality results. Lancet 1983;1:1062–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potvin L, Paradis G, Laurier D, Masson P, Pelletier J, Lessard R. Le cadre d’intervention du Projet Québécois de Démonstration en Santé du Coeur. Hygie 1992;11(1):17–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wickizer TM, Von Korff M, Cheadle A, Measer J, Wagner EH, Pearson D, et al. Activating community for health promotion: A process evaluation method. Am J Public Health 1993;83:561–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Von Korff M, Wickizer T, Maeser J, O’Leary P, Pearson D, Beery W. Community activation and health promotion: Identification of key organizations. Am J Health Prom 1992;7:110–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Brien, RM. Estimating the reliability of aggregate-level variables based on individual level characteristics. Sociological Method and Research 1990;18:473–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shavelson JR, Webb, NM. Generalizability Theory: A Primer. Newbury Park: Sage, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brislin, RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cultural Psychology 1970;1:185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vallerand RJ, Halliwell, WR. Vers une méthodologie de validation transculturelle des questionnaires psychologiques: implication pour la psychologie du sport. Can J Applied Sports Sciences 1983;8:9–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieudonné Jean-Baptiste
    • 1
  • Mustapha Berre
    • 2
  • Louise Potvin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Département de médecine sociale préventiveUniversité de MontréalMontréal, QuébecCanada
  2. 2.GRISUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations