Cited by 664Diabetes Management and EducationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

The problem areas in diabetes scale: an evaluation of its clinical utility

Welch, Garry W, Jacobson, Alan M, Polonsky, William H·1997·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and concurrent and discriminant validity of the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale, a new measure of emotional functioning in diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A battery of questionnaires, including the PAID, was completed by 256 volunteer diabetic outpatients. In our analyses, we examined the PAID's internal structure and compared mean IDDM and NIDDM treatment group scores in regression analyses to explore its discriminant validity. We also evaluated concurrent validity from the correlations between the PAID and diabetes-specific measures of coping and health attitudes and HbA1c. RESULTS: Principal component analyses identified a large emotional adjustment factor, supporting the use of the total score. Significant sizable correlations were found between the PAID and a range of selected health attitudinal measures. There were significant differences (with small-to-moderate effect sizes) in PAID scores between IDDM and NIDDM patients and between IDDM and NIDDM insulin- and tablet-treated subgroups; no differences were found between NIDDM insulin- and tablet-treated subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings provided support for the construct validity of the PAID, including evidence for discriminant validity from its ability to detect differences between IDDM and NIDDM treatment groups expected to differ in the emotional impact of life with diabetes. Future studies should explore the PAID's performance in nonspecialist treatment settings as well as its responsiveness to clinical change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diacare.20.5.760

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Welch, G. W., Jacobson, A. M., & Polonsky, W. H.
Affiliations
  • Mental Health Unit, Balboa Medical Center San Diego, California
  • Joslin Diabetes Center (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
1997-05-01
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
760-766
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2134365893
Cited by
664
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 37
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dk027845-14)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK27845, DK42315, R01DK042315)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Problem Areas in Diabetes scale, emotional adjustment, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, discriminant validity, concurrent validity, psychometric properties, coping, health attitudes, insulin-treated diabetes, HbA1c
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Attitude to Health, Demography, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Diabetic, Education, Emotions, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Socioeconomic Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Discriminant Analysis

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