Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API)

Open access
Simon, Daniela, Kriston, Levente, Loh, Andreas, Spies, Claudia, Scheibler, Fueloep, Wills, Celia, Härter, Martin·2010·Health Expectations

Abstract

Objective Validation of the German version of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API), a measure of patients’ preferences for decision making and information seeking. Methods Stepwise confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on a sample of patients (n = 1592) treated in primary care for depression (n = 186), surgical and internal medicine inpatients (n = 811) and patients with minor trauma treated in an emergency department (n = 595). An initial test of the model was done on calculation and validation halves of the sample. Both local and global indexes‐of‐fit suggested modifications to the scale. The scale was modified and re‐tested in the calculation sample and confirmed in the validation sample. Subgroup analyses for age, gender and type of treatment setting were also performed. Results The confirmatory analysis led to a modified version of the API with better local and global indexes‐of‐fit for samples of German‐speaking patients. Two items of the sub‐scale, ‘preference for decision‐making’, and one item of the sub‐scale, ‘preference for information seeking’, showed very low reliability scores and were deleted. Thus, several global indexes‐of‐fit clearly improved significantly. The modified scale was confirmed on the validation sample with acceptable to good indices of fit. Results of subgroup analyses indicated that no adaptations were necessary. Discussion and conclusions This first confirmatory analysis for a German‐speaking population showed that the API was improved by the removal of several items. There were theoretically plausible explanations for this improvement suggesting that the modifications might also be appropriate in English and other language versions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00584.x

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Simon, D., Kriston, L., Loh, A., Spies, C., Scheibler, F., Wills, C., & Härter, M.
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-03
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
234-243
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2156896136
Cited by
256
References
29
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00584.x
The paper
Simon, D., Kriston, L., Loh, A., Spies, C., Scheibler, F., Wills, C., & Härter, M. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API). Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00584.x

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.