Cited by 568Diabetes Management and EducationHealth Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Diabetes Empowerment Scale: a measure of psychosocial self-efficacy.

Open access
Anderson, R M, Funnell, M M, Fitzgerald, J T, Marrero, D G·2000·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and utility of the Diabetes Empowerment Scale (DES), which is a measure of diabetes-related psychosocial self-efficacy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this study (n = 375), the psychometric properties of the DES were calculated. To establish validity, DES subscales were compared with 2 previously validated subscales of the Diabetes Care Profile (DCP). Factor and item analyses were conducted to develop subscales that were coherent, meaningful, and had an acceptable coefficient alpha. RESULTS: The psychometric analyses resulted in a 28-item DES (alpha = 0.96) with 3 subscales: Managing the Psychosocial Aspects of Diabetes (alpha = 0.93), Assessing Dissatisfaction and Readiness To Change (alpha = 0.81), and Setting and Achieving Diabetes Goals (alpha = 0.91). Consistent correlations in the expected direction between DES subscales and DCP subscales provided evidence of concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that the DES is a valid and reliable measure of diabetes-related psychosocial self-efficacy. The DES should be a useful outcome measure for various educational and psychosocial interventions related to diabetes.

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 · 10.2337/diacare.23.6.739

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, R. M., Funnell, M. M., Fitzgerald, J. T., & Marrero, D. G.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2000-06-01
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
739-743
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2112383403
Cited by
568
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 27
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Michigan
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dk053994-03)
  • College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5P60DK-20572, P60DK020572, 5RO1 DK53994-02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Diabetes Empowerment Scale, diabetes self-management, psychometric validation, readiness to change, psychosocial interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Pilot Projects, Power, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Self Efficacy

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