Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 21, Issue 17, pp 1277–1290 | Cite as

Development and validation of the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF)

  • Carla M. BannEmail author
  • Sheri E. Fehnel
  • Dennis D. Gagnon
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: The Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale (DFS) provides comprehensive measurement of the impact of diabetic foot ulcers on patients’ QOL through self-administration of 64 items comprising 15 subscales.

Objective: To develop and evaluate a short form of the DFS (DFS-SF) to reduce patient burden and the number of outcome measures, and to improve sensitivity to change in clinical condition.

Methods: The DFS-SF was created through the analysis of data from a doubleblind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of the efficacy and safety of becaplermin (recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB) in the treatment of chronic, full-thickness, neuropathic, diabetic foot ulcers. Using these data, items demonstrating poor psychometric properties were eliminated. Exploratory factor analyses were then conducted to develop a new, more parsimonious scaling algorithm that optimised the internal consistency of the new subscales. Finally, data from two additional clinical trials were used to assess replicability of the DFS-SF subscale structure.

Results: The DFS-SF contains a total of 29 items comprising six subscales. The results of both confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses provided support for the scaling algorithm. The DFS-SF subscales showed good internal consistency, reliability and construct validity, and demonstrated sensitivity to ulcer healing.

Conclusions: The results of this investigation indicate that the DFS-SF has good psychometric properties and replicability.

Keywords

Negative Emotion Exploratory Factor Analysis Subscale Score Principal Factor Analysis Becaplermin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC, Raritan, New Jersey, USA.

References

  1. 1.
    Moss SE, Klein R, Klein B. The prevalence and incidence of lower extremity amputation in a diabetic population. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 610–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar S, Ashe HA, Parnell LN, et al. The prevalence of foot ulceration and its correlates in type 2 diabetic patients: a population-based study. Diabet Med 1994; 11: 480–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palumbo PJ, Melton LJ. Peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. In: Hams MI, Hammon RE editors. Diabetes in America. NIH Publication No.: 85-1468. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1985: 1–21Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM. Pathways to diabetic limb amputation: basis for prevention. Diabetes Care 1990; 13: 513–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reiber GE, Pecoraro RE, Koepsell TD. Risk factors for amputation in patients with diabetes mellitus: a case control study. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 97–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brod M. Quality of life issues in patients with diabetes and lower extremity ulcers: patients and care givers. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 365–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carrington AL, Mawdsley SK, Morley M, et al. Psychological status of diabetic people with or without lower limb disability. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1996; 32: 19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meijer JWG, Trip J, Jaegers SMHJ, et al. Quality of life in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Disabil Rehabil 2001; 23: 336–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston (MA): The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roorda LD, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, et al. Measuring functional limitations in rising and sitting down: development of a questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 663–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tennvall GR, Apelqvist J. Health-related quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus and foot ulcers. J Diabetes Complications 2000; 14: 235–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abetz L, Sutton M, Brady L, et al. The Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale (DFS): a quality of life instrument for use in clinical trials. Pract Diab Int 2002; 19: 167–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conway K, Pouget C, Finn P, et al. The cultural validation of the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale: methods and issues [abstract]. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 581Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sutton M, McGrath C, Brady L, et al. Diabetic foot care: assessing the impact of care on the whole patient. Pract Diab Int 2000; 17: 147–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dielman TE, Cattell RB, Wagner A. Evidence on the simple structure and factor invariance achieved by five rotational methods on four types of data. Mult Beh Res 1972; 7: 223–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gorsuch RL. A comparison of Biquartimin, Maxplane, Promax, and Varimax. Educ Psychol Meas 1970; 30: 861–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 6: 297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 81–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hill-Briggs F, Gary TL, Hill MN, et al. Health-related quality of life in urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 412–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee PP, Whitcup SM, Hays RD, et al. The relationship between visual acuity and functioning and well-being among diabetics. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 319–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, et al. The relationship between glycemic control and health-related quality of life in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Med Care 1994; 32: 1173–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laird NM, Ware JH. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 1982; 38: 963–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. SAS® system for mixed models. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc., 1996Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Forsyth BH, Lessler JT, Hubbard ML. Cognitive evaluation of the questionnaire. In: Turner C, Lessler JT, Gfroerer JC, editors. Survey measurement of drug use. Publication No.: 92-1929 Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 1992: 13–52Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 141–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thurstone LL. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 1947Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hatcher L. A step-by-step approach to using the SAS® system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc., 1994Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, et al. Evaluating quality-oflife and health status instruments: development of review scientific criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 979–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jöreskog K, Sörbom D. LISREL® 8: user’s reference guide. Chicago (IL): Scientific Software International, Inc., 1996Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hoyle RH, Panter AT. Writing about structural equation models. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1995:158–76Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum, 1996Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum, 1983Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wrigley CS, Neuhaus JO. The matching of two sets of factors. Am Psychol 1955; 10: 418–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla M. Bann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sheri E. Fehnel
    • 2
  • Dennis D. Gagnon
    • 3
  1. 1.Statistics Research DivisionRTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.RTI Health SolutionsRTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & DevelopmentRaritanUSA

Personalised recommendations