RNOtherInternational journal of nursing sciences2017

Psychometric evaluation of the Thai translation of the Diabetes Self-management Questionnaire in type 2 diabetes.

Somsak Thojampa, Barbara Mawn

PMID 31406746

WHAT IT FOUND

The Thai version of the Diabetes Self-management Questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool for assessing self-care in Thai adults with type 2 diabetes.

It accurately measures glucose management, diet, activity, and healthcare use, making it suitable for clinical assessment and research.

Key findings

01The Thai translation of the Diabetes Self-management Questionnaire demonstrated excellent content validity, with 69% of items rated as having excellent validity and the overall scale validity score exceeding the recommended threshold.

02The questionnaire showed good internal consistency in the pilot study and high internal consistency in the final study, indicating that the items reliably measure the same construct.

03The instrument was found to be culturally relevant and understandable to Thai adults with type 2 diabetes, supporting its use for assessing self-management behaviors.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study used convenience sampling, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to all Thai adults with type 2 diabetes. The instrument's utility as a quick screening tool in clinical settings was not evaluated. The study focused on psychometric properties and did not assess the questionnaire's impact on patient outcomes or clinical decision-making.

Declared interests

No conflicts of interest or funding sources were reported in the provided text.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that this questionnaire is a quick screening tool for clinical practice, as its application in that setting was not evaluated. Additionally, the study only validates the tool for research and assessment purposes, not for improving patient outcomes directly.

Read it on PubMed →