CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Development and validation of a brief measure of self-management competence: the Self-Management Self-Test (SMST)

Wehmeier, Peter M., Fox, Theresa, Doerr, Johanna M., Schnierer, Nadja, Bender, Matthias, Nater, Urs M.·2019·Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science
DOI 10.1177/2168479019849879
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Self-management can be considered a way of dealing with oneself and relates to actions undertaken to create order, discipline, and control. The concept is closely linked to concepts of self-efficacy and self-regulation but can be distinguished from these. The Self-Management Self-Test (SMST) is a 5-item assessment scale designed to measure self-management competence in individuals with or without a psychiatric disorder (as screened using PHQ). The aim of this study was to validate the SMST in terms of convergent validity, the ability to differentiate, criterion validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.Methods Eighty-seven adults hospitalized for treatment of major depression (clinical sample) and 595 individuals from the general population (population sample) filled out the SMST and 5 other stress-related psychometric instruments measuring similar constructs. All instruments were repeated 4 to 6 weeks later. Convergent validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were tested based on data from the population sample. Convergent validity was determined by correlations with other stress-related psychometric instruments. Correlations in the range of r = -0.4 to -0.6 were expected. To test for criterion validity, the clinical sample was matched with a subsample from the population sample, consisting only of individuals without a psychiatric disorder as screened using PHQ (nonclinical subsample, n = 87). The ability to differentiate was based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.Results Correlations between the SMST and the other stress-related tests were significant and in the expected direction and predominantly within the expected range (Pearson r = -0.40 to -0.64). The correlation with the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20, measuring fatigue, and with the dimensional scale for depression in the PHQ was higher than expected and referred to very similar items. Thus, convergent validity mainly lay within the expected range. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach α = 0.80), and test-retest reliability was fairly low (r = 0.71). The SMST showed a significant difference, t(157) = 7.97, P < .001, between the clinical sample (M = 9.36, SD = 3.39) and the nonclinical subsample (M = 12.94, SD = 2.47) with a large effect size (d = 1.3). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was excellent (AUC = 0.81, SE = 0.034, P < .001), suggesting that the SMST can distinguish between the clinical and nonclinical samples.Conclusions The SMST can be considered an effective self-rating test to assess self-management competence in individuals from the general population as well as in people with major depression. It may also be useful to detect treatment outcomes in people with major depression. The high internal consistency indicates that all 5 items are important for the test as a whole. The low test-retest reliability suggests sensitivity to change. The SMST is likely to differentiate particularly well at low levels of self-management competence, suggesting it may be a useful tool in studies investigating people with depression or other psychiatric disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Furthermore, the SMST could be useful in assessing the effect of treatment interventions over time and evaluating patient-reported outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2168479019849879

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wehmeier, P. M., Fox, T., Doerr, J. M., Schnierer, N., Bender, M., & Nater, U. M.
Affiliations
  • Vitos (DE)
  • Department of Psychology, University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • Vitos Hospital for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Kassel, Germany
  • University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Wehmeier, Peter M.
ORCID
Venue
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-07-14
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
216847901984987
ISSN
  • 2168-4790 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-4804
DOI
10.1177/2168479019849879
OpenAlex
W2960064973
Cited by
10
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
self-management skills, scale development, psychometric validation, major depressive disorder, psychiatric inpatients, convergent validity, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, self-regulation, self-efficacy, depression screening, PHQ-9

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