Osteoporosis International

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 929–940 | Cite as

Psychometric properties and osteoprotective behaviors among type 2 diabetic patients: osteoporosis self-efficacy scale Malay version (OSES-M)

  • S. A. Abdulameer
  • S. A. Syed Sulaiman
  • M. A. Hassali
  • K. Subramaniam
  • M. N. Sahib
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Summary

In type 2 diabetic patients (T2DM), only 22 % have normal bone mineral density and almost three quarters of the sample population had low self-efficacy towards osteoporosis. These results reflect the need for screening and educational programs to increase the awareness of T2DM towards osteoporosis.

Introduction

Our aim was to translate and examine the psychometric properties of the Malay version of the osteoporosis self-efficacy scale (OSES-M) among T2DM and to determine the best cut-off value with optimum sensitivity and specificity. In addition, to assess factors that affects diabetic patients' osteoporosis self-efficacy.

Methods

A standard “forward-backward” procedure was used to translate the OSES into Malay language, which was then validated with a convenience sample of 250 T2DM. The sensitivity and specificity of the OSES-M was calculated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Bivariate and multivariate approaches were used to examine multiple independent variables on each dependent variable.

Results

The mean score of OSES-M was 731.74 ± 197.15. Fleiss' kappa, content validity ratio range, and content validity index were 0.99, 0.75–1, and 0.96, respectively. Two factors were extracted from exploratory factor analysis and were confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were 0.92 and 0.86, respectively. The optimum cut-off point of OSES-M to predict osteoporosis/osteopenia was 858. Regression analysis revealed that knowledge, health belief, and some demographic data had an impact on OSES-M.

Conclusions

The results show that the OSES-M is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring osteoporosis self-efficacy in the Malaysian clinical setting.

Keywords

Diabetes Multivariate analysis Osteoporosis Self-efficacy Validity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge and extend gratitude for Universiti Science Malaysia (USM) for its support in undertaking this work through the USM fellowship program.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Sahib MN, Abdulameer SA, Aziz NA, Hassan Y (2009) Pathogenesis of diabetic kidney disease: review of cellular aspects of renal lesions. Afr J Pharm Pharacol 3:507–514Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Letchuman G, Wan Nazaimoon W, Wan Mohamad W, Chandran L, Tee G, Jamaiyah H et al (2010) Prevalence of Diabetes in the Malaysian National Health Morbidity Survey III 2006. Med J Malays 65:173–179Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thrailkill K, Lumpkin C Jr, Bunn R, Kemp S, Fowlkes J (2005) Is insulin an anabolic agent in bone? Dissecting the diabetic bone for clues. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 289:E735–E745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reyes B, Moreno O (2005) Prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Aten Primaria 35:342–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindsay R (1995) The burden of osteoporosis: cost. Am J Med 98:9S–11SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lim P, Ong F, Adeeb N, Seri S, Noor-Aini M, Shamsuddin K et al (2005) Bone health in urban midlife Malaysian women: risk factors and prevention. Osteoporos Int 16:2069–2079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loh K, Shong H (2007) Osteoporosis: primary prevention in the community. Med J Malays 62:355Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lau E, Woo J, Lam V, Hong A (2001) Milk supplementation of the diet of postmenopausal Chinese women on a low calcium intake retards bone loss. J Bone Miner Res 16:1704–1709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Räkel A, Sheehy O, Rahme E, LeLorier J (2008) Osteoporosis among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab 34:193–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aree-Ue S, Pothiban L, Belza B, Sucamvang K, Panuthai S (2006) Osteoporosis preventive behavior in Thai older adults: feasibility and acceptability. J Gerontol Nurs 32:23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan M, Kwong W, Zang Y, Wan P (2007) Evaluation of an osteoporosis prevention education programme for young adults. J Adv Nurs 57:270–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horan M, Kim K, Gendler P, Froman R, Patel M (1998) Development and evaluation of the osteoporosis self-efficacy scale. Res Nurs Health 21:395–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim K, Horan M, Gendler P (1991) Osteoporosis knowledge tests, osteoporosis health belief scale, and osteoporosis self-efficacy scale. Grand Valley State University, AllendaleGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee Lorenz A, Erikson P (2005) Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 8:94–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, Savoy SM, Kostas-Polston E (2007) A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 39:155–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76:378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rungtusanatham M (1998) Let’s not overlook content validity. Decision Line 29:10–13Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28:563–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4:272–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kline R (1998) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res 18:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cronbach L (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kanis J (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. Osteoporos Int 4:368–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peat JK, Barton B (2005) Medical statistics: a guide to data analysis and critical appraisal. Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akobeng AK (2007) Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre- and post-test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. Acta Paediatr 96:487–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simel DL, Feussner JR, Delong ER, Matchar DB (1987) Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Making 7:107–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mardia KV (1970) Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 57:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chin WW, Gopal A, Salisbury WD (1997) Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: the development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Inf Syst Res 8:342–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Segars AH, Grover V (1993) Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Q 17:517–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chau PYK, Hu PJH (2001) Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis Sci 32:699–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tojib DR, Sugianto LF (2006) Content validity of instruments in IS research. JITTA 8:5Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baheiraei A, Ritchie JE, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2005) Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the osteoporosis knowledge and health belief questionnaires. Maturitas 50:134–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Norman GR, Streiner DL (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Asmawi M, Seppo L, Vapaatalo H, Korpela R (2006) Hypolactasia and lactose intolerance among three ethnic groups in Malaysia. Indian J Med Res 124:697–704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davies KM, Heaney RP, Recker RR, Lappe JM, Barger-Lux MJ, Rafferty K, Hinders S (2000) Calcium intake and body weight. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:4635–4638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ascherio A, Hennekens C, Willett WC, Sacks F, Rosner B, Manson JA, Witteman J, Stampfer MJ (1996) Prospective study of nutritional factors, blood pressure, and hypertension among US women. Hypertension 27:1065–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pereira MA, Jacobs DR Jr, Van Horn L, Slattery ML, Kartashov AI, Ludwig DS (2002) Dairy consumption, obesity, and the insulin resistance syndrome in young adults. JAMA 287:2081–2089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sabherwal S, Bravis V, Devendra D (2010) Effect of oral vitamin D and calcium replacement on glycaemic control in South Asian patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract 64:1084–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schneider SH, Khachadurian AK, Amorosa LF, Clemow L, Ruderman NB (1992) Ten-year experience with an exercise-based outpatient life-style modification program in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 15:1800–1810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kelley G, Kelley K (2007) Effects of aerobic exercise on lipids and lipoproteins in adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Public Health 121:643–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Abdulameer
    • 1
  • S. A. Syed Sulaiman
    • 1
  • M. A. Hassali
    • 2
  • K. Subramaniam
    • 3
  • M. N. Sahib
    • 4
  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacy Department, School of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia
  2. 2.Social and Administrative Pharmacy Department, School of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia
  3. 3.Diabetes out Patient ClinicPenang General HospitalGeorgetownMalaysia
  4. 4.Pharmaceutical Technology Department, School of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia

Personalised recommendations