The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Psychometric testing of the self-care of heart failure index
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND Self-care is believed to improve outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients. However, research testing this assumption is hampered by difficulties in measuring self-care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a revised instrument measuring self-care in persons with HF, the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI). The SCHFI is a self-report measure comprised of 15 items rated on a 4-point response scale and divided into 3 subscales. METHODS AND RESULTS Psychometric testing was done using data from 760 HF patients (age 70.36 +/- 12.3 years, 51% male) from 7 sites in the United States. Reliability of the SCHFI (alpha.76) was adequate. Reliability of the Self-Care Maintenance subscale was lower than desired (alpha.56) but the reliability of the other subscales was adequate: Self-Care Management (alpha.70) and Self-Care Self-Confidence (alpha.82). Construct validity was supported with satisfactory model fit on confirmatory factor analysis (NFI=.69, CFI.73). Construct validity was supported further with significant total and subscale (all P <.05) differences between patients experienced with HF and those newly diagnosed, consistent with the underlying theory. CONCLUSION Low reliability of the Self-Care Maintenance subscale was expected because the items reflect behaviors known to vary in individuals. The reliability and validity of the SCHFI are sufficient to support its use in clinical research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reliability and Validity Assessment
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979) · doi:10.4135/9781412985642 · Cited by 5,884
Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms
Lorig, K. R., & Holman, H. R. (2003) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2601_01 · Cited by 4,094
Cited by
Mobile Phone-Based Telemonitoring for Heart Failure Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Seto, E., Leonard, K. J., Cafazzo, J. A., Barnsley, J., Masino, C., & Ross, H. J. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1909 · Cited by 339
Freedland, K. E., Carney, R. M., Rich, M. W., Steinmeyer, B. C., & Rubin, E. H. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5220 · Cited by 264
Effect of Patient Activation on Self-Management in Patients With Heart Failure
Shively, M. J., Gardetto, N. J., Kodiath, M. F., Kelly, A., Smith, T. L., Stepnowsky, C., Maynard, C., & Larson, C. B. (2013) · Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1097/jcn.0b013e318239f9f9 · Cited by 203
Psychological Determinants of Heart Failure Self-Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Kessing, D., Denollet, J., Widdershoven, J., & Kupper, N. (2016) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0000000000000270 · Cited by 113
Cameron, J., Worrall-Carter, L., Riegel, B., Lo, S. K., & Stewart, S. (2009) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2008.11.004 · Cited by 110
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Riegel, B., Carlson, B., Moser, D. K., Sebern, M., Hicks, F. D., & Roland, V.
- Venue
- Journal of Cardiac Failure
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 350-360
- ISSN
- 1071-9164 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120088961
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 30.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Psychometric testing of the self-care of heart failure index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cardfail.2003.12.001
- The paper
- Riegel, B., Carlson, B., Moser, D. K., Sebern, M., Hicks, F. D., & Roland, V. (2004). Psychometric testing of the self-care of heart failure index. Journal of Cardiac Failure. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2003.12.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.