| MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES | |
| Limitations | <5 European languages (English) |
| Observations | |
| 1. RELIABILITY | |
| A. Internal Consistency | Tested |
| Cronbach's (Describe) |
0.89 |
| B. Reliability intraobserver or test-retest | Tested |
| Continuous scores: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) Dichotomus: Cohen kappa (Describe) |
Four-week test–retest reliability was good: 0.90 |
| C. Reliability interobserver or Measurement error | Not Tested |
| Standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) or Limits of agreement (LoA) (Describe) |
|
| 2. VALIDITY | |
| A. Content validity: face validity | Tested |
| Expert opinion (relevance and comprehensiveness) (Describe) |
Initial items emerged from interviews with 19 health professionals and 17 people with RA. Of 166 self-management items generated, 100 commonly cited items were selected for the pilot RASE. then, using a correlation matrix and PCA, a 28-item RASE was created |
| B. Construct Validity: Structural validity |
Tested |
| Hypotheses-testing | Tested |
| Cross-cultural validity | Not Tested |
| Brief Description |
Factor analysis showed 8 factors explaining 75.5% of the variance in the RASE and comprising 25 of the 28 items. These appeared to represent different SE factors fairly cleanly for relaxation, relationships, function, leisure activities, exercise, sleep, medication and fatigue. Confirmatory factor analysis in the 2008 revalidation (n=128 people with RA) showed similar factor loadings on the 8 factors identified in the initial validation study.  |
| C. Criterion validity | Tested |
| Comparison with a 'gold standard' Continuous scores: correlations, ROC curves Dichotomus: Sensitivity & Specificity (Describe) |
The RASE didn't show significant correlation with the General Self-Efficacy Scale, a trait measure of optimistic self-beliefs and perceived coping competence (in contrast to the more behavior-specific concepts of the RASE). |