Measuring Positive Health using the My Positive Health (MPH) and Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC) Dialogue Tools: A Panel Study on Measurement Properties in a Representative General Dutch Population

Vera P. van Druten (), Margot J. Metz, Jolanda J. P. Mathijssen, Dike van de Mheen, Marja van Vliet, Bridey Rudd, Esther de Vries and Lenny M. W. Nahar van - Venrooij
Additional contact information
Vera P. van Druten: Tilburg University
Margot J. Metz: Tilburg University
Jolanda J. P. Mathijssen: Tilburg University
Dike van de Mheen: Tilburg University
Marja van Vliet: Institute for Positive Health
Bridey Rudd: Penumbra Mental Health
Esther de Vries: Tilburg University
Lenny M. W. Nahar van - Venrooij: Tilburg University

Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2024, vol. 19, issue 5, No 30, 2825-2846

Abstract: Abstract We aimed to investigate whether the dialogue tools My Positive Health (MPH) and Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC) tools were useful for quantitively measuring the positive health construct for monitoring and scientific purposes as well. An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in a representative general Dutch population (the LISS panel) to investigate factor structures and internal consistency from the 42-items MPH and 12-items I.ROC. After randomly splitting the dataset, principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were applied. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficient between both tools’ total scores were calculated. 2,457 participants completed the questionnaires. A six-factor structure was extracted for MPH (PH42) and a two-factor structure for I.ROC (I.ROC12). Explained variances were 68.1% and 56.1%, respectively. CFA resulted in good fit indices. Cronbach’s alphas were between 0.74 to 0.97 (PH42) and 0.73 to 0.87 (I.ROC12). Pearson correlation between the total scores was 0.8 and Spearman correlation was 0.77. Both PH42 and I.ROC12 are useful to quantitatively measure positive health aspects which can be summarised in sum scores. The dimensions found in this study and the corresponding item division differed from the dimensions of the original dialogue tools. Further research is recommended focussing on item reduction for PH42, factor structure of I.ROC, assessment of construct validity (in a general population) and response scales in more depth.

Keywords: Positive health; Recovery; Patient-centred outcomes research; Patient reported outcome measures; Measurement properties; Factor analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11482-024-10356-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:19:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s11482-024-10356-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/11482

DOI: 10.1007/s11482-024-10356-3

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Research in Quality of Life is currently edited by Daniel Shek

More articles in Applied Research in Quality of Life from Springer, International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().