Psychometric properties of the Czech versionof the nine-item European heart failureself-care behaviour scale
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12923/pielxxiw-2025-0018Keywords:
confirmatory factor analysis, European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale – 9, reliability, validityAbstract
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CZECH VERSION OF THE NINE-ITEM EUROPEAN HEART FAILURE SELF-CARE BEHAVIOUR SCALE
Aim. To assess validity and reliability of the Czech version of the European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale (EHFScBS-9).
Material and methods. 130 Czech heart failure (HF) patients accomplished the EHFScBS-9 and the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (CSEQ). Linguistic validation was performed. Item analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and convergent validity were evaluated. Reliability was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha.
Results. Based on fit criteria for the confirmatory factor analysis models, the results pointed to good fit for the two-factor model (χ2 = 40.59, p = 0.013; RMSEA = 0.077; CFI = 0.972; TLI = 0.956; GFI = 0.937), respectively for the three-factor solution (χ2 = 38.24, p = 0.017; RMSEA = 0.076; CFI = 0.974; TLI = 0.957; GFI = 0.943) of the Czech EHFScBS-9. Convergent validity was confirmed on the basis of a significant correlation (r = 0.31, p = 0.001) between the Czech EHFScBS-9 (standardised score) and the CSEQ. Internal consistency was confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha values for the whole instrument (0.84), as well as for “Consulting behaviour” subscale (0.90). The reliability of “adherence behaviours” subscale was questionable (0.59).
Conclusions. The Czech version of the EHFScBS-9 is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring self-care behaviour in HF patients.
References
1. Emmons-Bell S, Johnson C, Roth G. Prevalence, incidence and survival of heart failure: a systematic review. Heart. 2022;108(17):1351-1360. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320131
2. Urbich M, Globe G, Pantiri K, et al. A Systematic Review of Medical Costs Associated with Heart Failure in the USA (2014-2020). Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(11):1219-1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00952-0
3. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895-e1032. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063
4. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J. Heart Fail. 2022;24(1):4-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2333
5. Riegel B, Jaarsma T, Lee CS, et al. Integrating symptoms into the middle-range theory of self-care of chronic illness. ANS Adv. Nurs. Sci. 2019;42(3):206-215. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000237
6. Jaarsma T, Cameron J, Riegel B, et al. Factors related to self-care in heart failure patients according to the middle-range theory of self-care of chronic illness: a literature update. Curr. Heart. Fail. Rep. 2017;14(2):71-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-017-0324-1
7. Jaarsma T, Hill L, Bayes-Genis A, et al. Self-care of heart failure patients: practical management recommendations from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2021;23(1):157-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2008
8. Huang Z, Liu T, Chair SY. Eff ectiveness of nurse-led self-care interventions on selfcare behaviors, self-effi cacy, depression and illness perceptions in people with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2022;132:104255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104255
9. Aghajanloo A, Negarandeh R, Janani L, et al. Self-care status in patients with heart failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs. Open. 2021;8(5):2235-2248. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.805
10. Ruppar TM, Cooper PS, Johnson ED, et al. Self-care interventions for adults with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. J. Adv. Nurs. 2019;75(3):676-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13903
11. Jaarsma T, Arestedt KF, Mårtensson J, et al. The European Heart Failure Selfcare Behaviour scale revised into a nine-item scale (EHFScB-9): a reliable and valid international instrument. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2009;11(1):99-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.805
12. Sedlar N, Socan G, Farkas J, et al. Measuring self-care in patients with heart failure: A review of the psychometric properties of the European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale (EHFScBS). Patient Educ. Couns. 2017;100(7):1304-1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.005
13. Vellone E, Jaarsma T, Strömberg A, et al. The European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale: new insights into factorial structure, reliability, precision and scoring procedure. Patient Educ. Couns. 2014;94(1):97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.014
14. Pavlušová M, Klimešc J, Špinara J, et al. Chronické srdeční selhání – dopad onemocnění na pacienty a zdravotní systém v České republice: retrospektivní analýza typu cost-of-illness [Chronic heart failure – Impact of the condition on patients and the healthcare system in the Czech Republic: A retrospective costofillness analysis]. Cor et Vasa. 2018;60:e224-e233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvasa.2018.03.002
15. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2011;17(2):268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
16. Cappelleri JC, Jason Lundy J, et al. Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures. Clin. Ther. 2014;36(5):648-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.006
17. Sullivan MD, LaCroix AZ, Russo J, et al. Self-effi cacy and self-reported functional status in coronary heart disease: a six-month prospective study. Psychosom. Med. 1998;60(4):473-478. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199807000-00014
18. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fi t. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008;6(1), 53-60.
19. IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
20. Arbuckle JL. Amos (Version 23.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS; 2014.
21. Ben Gal T, Kato NP, Yaari V, et al. Psychometric testing of the hebrew version of the european heart failure self-care behaviour scale. Heart Lung Circ. 2020;29(7):e121-e130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2019.10.019
22. Østergaard B, Mahrer-Imhof R, Lauridsen J, et al. Validity and reliability of the Danish version of the 9-item European Heart Failure Self-care Behavior Scale. Scand. J. Caring. Sci. 2017;31(2):405-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12342
23. Son YJ, Won MH. Psychometric Validation of the Korean Version of the 9-Item European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale. Eval. Health Prof. 2020;43(1):33-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278718817946
24. Uchmanowicz I, Wleklik M. Polish adaptation and reliability testing of the nineitem European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale (9-EHFScBS). Kardiol. Pol. 2016;74(7):691-696. https://doi.org/10.5603/KP.a2015.0239
25. Lambrinou E, Kalogirou F, Lamnisos D, et al. The Greek version of the 9-item European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale: a multidimensional or a unidimensional scale?. Heart Lung. 2014;43(6):494-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.07.001
26. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011;2:53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
