Umeå University's logo

PURPOSE: Self-management ability is commonly assessed in chronic disease research and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the structural and convergent validity of three commonly used self-management outcome measures in a sample of persons with neurological conditions.

METHODS: We used data from a Canadian survey of persons with neurological conditions, which included three commonly used self-management measures: the Partners in Health Scale (PIH), the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), and the Self-Efficacy for Managing a Chronic Disease Scale (SEMCD). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the structural and convergent validity of the three measures.

RESULTS: When treated as single-factor constructs, none of the measurement models provided a good fit to the data. A four-domain version of the PIH was the best fitting model. Confirmatory factor analysis suggests that the three tools measure different, but correlated constructs.

CONCLUSIONS: While the PAM, PIH and SEMCD scales are all used as measures of patient self-management, our study indicates that they measure different, but correlated latent variables. None, when treated as single, uni-dimensional construct, provides an acceptable fit to our data. This is probably because self-management is multi-dimensional, as is consistently shown by qualitative evidence. While these measures may provide reliable summative measures, multi-dimensional scales are needed for clinical use and more detailed research on self-management.