Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz
Gewählte Publikation:
SHR Neuro Krebs Kardio Lipid Stoffw Microb
Holter, M; Avian, A; Weger, M; Strini, S; Michelitsch, M; Winkler, V; Kloft, AM; Groß, J; Falb, T; Gabriel, M; Großpötzl, M; Wedrich, A; Berghold, A.
Uncovering potential interviewer-related biases in self-efficacy assessment: a study among chronic disease patients.
BMC Psychol. 2025; 13(1): 299
Doi: 10.1186/s40359-025-02579-2
[OPEN ACCESS]
Web of Science
PubMed
FullText
FullText_MUG
- Führende Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Holter Magdalena
- Co-Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Avian Alexander
- Berghold Andrea
- Falb Thomas
- Gabriel Maximilian
- Großpötzl Manuel
- Kloft Agnes Mercedes
- Michelitsch Monja
- Strini Sanja
- Wedrich Andreas
- Weger Martin
- Altmetrics:
- Dimensions Citations:
- Plum Analytics:
- Scite (citation analytics):
- Abstract:
- BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish specific tasks and achieve goals, and plays an essential role in achieving positive outcomes in a wide range of domains. Central to the measurement of any form of self-efficacy is the assessment without bias, also in case of an interview situation. METHODS: Outpatients with macular edema, an eye disease, participated in this questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The study assessed self-efficacy using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) in German. Interviewers read questionnaires aloud to patients. Differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated using likelihood-ratio χ2 tests for interviewer, sex, age, education, working status, income, diagnosis, and health-status. RESULTS: The analysis included N = 556 patients. Median age was 68.4 (IQR: 62.0 - 76.0) years and mean overall GSE score 32.8 (SD: 4.81). No DIF was detected for interviewer. However, DIF was found in item 1 for education (uniform DIF, NCDIFno degree vs. degree = 0.042; easier with degree vs. none), in item 1 and 3 for income (item 1: non-uniform DIF, NCDIF<€ 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,125≤€ 1,950 = 0.050 / NCDIF< € 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,950 = 0.099; item 3: uniform DIF, NCDIF<€ 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,125-≤€ 1,950 = 0.024 / NCDIF< € 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,950: 0.095; both easier with higher income), in item 2 for working status (uniform DIF, NCDIFretired vs. other = 0.017; easier if working) and in item 3 for sex (non-uniform DIF, NCDIFmale vs. female = 0.043; easier for women in low ability, harder for them from medium ability on). CONCLUSIONS: Given that no DIF was detected concerning interviewers, our findings indicate that an objective assessment of self-efficacy in a face-to-face interview may be feasible, provided that interviewers receive appropriate training. Since DIF effects concerning other patients characteristics found were small, the GSE may provide a relatively bias free way to assess self-efficacy in an interview setting.
- Find related publications in this database (using NLM MeSH Indexing)
- Humans - administration & dosage
- Male - administration & dosage
- Female - administration & dosage
- Self Efficacy - administration & dosage
- Middle Aged - administration & dosage
- Cross-Sectional Studies - administration & dosage
- Aged - administration & dosage
- Chronic Disease - psychology
- Surveys and Questionnaires - administration & dosage
- Bias - administration & dosage
- Interviews as Topic - administration & dosage
- Psychometrics - instrumentation
- Germany - administration & dosage
- Find related publications in this database (Keywords)
- General self-efficacy scale
- Interviewer bias
- Administration mode
- Item response theory
- Differential item functioning