Cited by 180Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchHealth Education and Validation

The Confidence in Diabetes Self-Care Scale

Open access
van der Ven, Nicole C.W., Weinger, Katie, Yi, Joyce, Pouwer, Frans, Adèr, Herman, van der Ploeg, Henk M., Snoek, Frank J.·2003·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To examine psychometric properties of the Confidence in Diabetes Self-Care (CIDS) scale, a newly developed instrument assessing diabetes-specific self-efficacy in Dutch and U.S. patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Reliability and validity of the CIDS scale were evaluated in Dutch (n = 151) and U.S. (n = 190) outpatients with type 1 diabetes. In addition to the CIDS scale, assessment included HbA1c, emotional distress, fear of hypoglycemia, self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and self-care behavior. The Dutch sample completed additional measures on perceived burden and importance of self-care. Test-retest reliability was established in a second Dutch sample (n = 62). RESULTS—Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.86 for Dutch patients and 0.90 U.S. patients) and test-retest reliability (Spearman’s r = 0.85, P < 0.0001) of the CIDS scale were high. Exploratory factor analysis showed one strong general factor. Spearman’s correlations between the CIDS scale and other measures were moderate and in the expected directions, and high HbA1c levels were associated with low CIDS scores in the U.S. sample only. Low CIDS scores were positively associated with self-care but not with glycemic control in the original samples. CIDS scores in the U.S. and Dutch samples did not show any statistically significant differences. U.S. men had higher CIDS scores than U.S. women. CONCLUSIONS—The CIDS scale is a reliable and valid measure of diabetes-specific self-efficacy for use in patients with type 1 diabetes. High psychometric similarity allows for cross-cultural comparisons.

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.26.3.713

Cites

45 of 45 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
van der Ven, N. C. W., Weinger, K., Yi, J., Pouwer, F., Adèr, H., van der Ploeg, H. M., & Snoek, F. J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Medical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Joslin Diabetes Center (US)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2003-03-01
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
713-718
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2076543844
Cited by
180
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK42315, R01DK042315)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
diabetes self-efficacy, type 1 diabetes, psychometric validation, scale reliability, scale validity, glycemic control, HbA1c, self-care behavior, cross-cultural comparison, Dutch patients, sex differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, Self Care, United States, 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