| Title |
Measuring dispositional optimism in patients with chronic heart failure and their healthcare providers: the validity of the Life Orientation Test-Revised
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s139522 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrizia Steca, Dario Monzani, Antonia Pierobon, Giulia Avvenuti, Andrea Greco, Anna Giardini |
| Abstract |
The Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) measures dispositional optimism (DO) - an individual difference promoting physical and psychological well-being in healthy adults (HAs) as well as in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and healthcare providers (HPs). Controversy has arisen regarding the dimensionality of the LOT-R. Whereas DO was originally defined as a one-dimensional construct, empirical evidence suggests two correlated factors in the LOT-R. This study was the first attempt to identify the best factor structure of the LOT-R in patients with CHF and HPs and to evaluate its measurement invariance among subsamples of patients with CHF, HPs, and a normative sample of HAs. Its validity was also evaluated in patients with CHF. The sample comprised 543 participants (34% HAs; 34% HPs; and 32% CHF patients). Congeneric, two correlated factor, and two orthogonal factor models for the LOT-R were compared by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Measurement invariance was evaluated by considering differential item functioning (DIF) among subsamples of HPs, patients with CHF, and HAs. In patients with CHF, validity was assessed by considering associations with anxiety and depression. The CFA demonstrated the superior fit of the two orthogonal factor model. Moreover, across patients with CHF, HPs, and HAs, the results highlighted a minimal DIF with only trivial consequences. Finally, negative but weak correlations of DO with anxiety and depression confirmed the validity of the LOT-R in patients with CHF. In summary, these findings supported the validity and suitability of the LOT-R for the assessment of DO in patients with CHF, HPs, and HAs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,065
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,824
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#30
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.