Skip to main content

Validation of the psychometric properties of the Malay advance care planning questionnaire

Abstract

Background

There is a growing interest among the developing countries on advance care planning (ACP) due to the reported benefits of planning ahead in the developed countries. Validated instruments in various languages have been developed to facilitate study on the views of public prior to its implementation. However, instrument to explore the views on ACP in Malay has not been developed and validated yet, even though Malay is spoken extensively by approximately 220 million people in the Malay Archipelago. There is also a need for instrument in Malay language to facilitate the assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of Malaysians regarding ACP. Therefore, the aim of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the Malay Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ-M).

Methods

The ACPQ was translated according to international guidelines. This validation study was conducted from January to June 2018. Participants who were ≥ 21 years old, and able to understand Malay were recruited from an urban primary care clinic and a tertiary education institution in Malaysia. A researcher administered the ACPQ-M to participants via a face-to-face interview at baseline and 2 weeks later. Each interview took approximately 10–20 min.

Results

A total of 222/232 participants agreed to participate (response rate = 96.0%). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis found that the ACPQ-M was a 4-factor model. The Cronbach’s α values for the four domains ranged from 0.674–0.947. Only 157/222 participants completed the test-retest (response rate = 71%). At test-retest, quadratic weighted kappa values for all domains ranged from 0.340–0.674, except for two domains which ranged from − 0.200-0.467.

Conclusions

The ACPQ-M was found to be a 4-factor model, and a valid and reliable instrument to assess the KAP regarding ACP. This instrument can contribute to profound understanding of the KAP of Malaysians regarding ACP, and assist policy makers in determining the readiness for legislation of ACP in Malaysia.

Peer Review reports

Background

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process which supports a person at various stages of life and health status to understand and express their values, wishes and preferences toward future health care [1]. Patients can record their preference of medical care and appoint a surrogate decision-maker ahead of time [2]. Well implemented ACP policies have improved the quality of life of patients and their families [3, 4]. This improvement may be contributed by the enhancement of patients’ sense of control over their medical care and the bonding between patients, families and health care professionals with ACP discussions [5, 6]. Despite the known benefits, the uptake of ACP remains low [7] in countries which has legislation support such as the United States [8], United Kingdom [8] and Australia [9].

ACP is currently not legislated in Malaysia although it is briefly described in the code of medical ethics [10]. A study revealed that 76% of 56 patients undergoing haemodialysis in Malaysia have never heard of ACP [11]. Another exploratory study performed on fifteen older Malaysians found that they were receptive to its concept, although they had no prior exposure to ACP [12]. However, no in-depth work had been conducted in Malaysia to obtain further insights into their knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) towards advance care planning. Moreover, recent studies on younger adults have highlighted the needs to engage younger adults in ACP [13, 14] as previous studies [15,16,17,18,19] were mainly conducted on adults aged > 50 years with terminal illnesses or chronic diseases. Hence, there is a need to include younger people when exploring the KAP regarding ACP. A search of published literature revealed that there is a lack of instruments that assessed the KAP regarding ACP. Previous KAP studies that were published used non-validated questionnaires [20, 21]. Instruments should be validated to ensure consistency and reliability of the results obtained [22].

Several instruments have been developed to assess the views, knowledge, attitude and practice of ACP: the ‘Cultural values and belief scale’ [16], ‘The ethnicity and attitudes toward advance care directives questionnaires’ [15] and the ‘Asian American quality of life survey’ [23]. These instruments were primarily tested and used in the United States [23], Korea [24], Japan [25] and Hong Kong [26]. Recognition of the influence of culture and religion on individual’s preference for advance care planning has highlighted the need to consider a local instrument for assessment of KAP regarding ACP among the Malaysians [27].

The English version of the Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ) was developed and validated to assess the KAP on ACP in Malaysia [28]. This instrument was found to be a reliable instrument with adequate internal consistency to measure the four domains related to ACP; “feelings regarding ACP”, “justifications for ACP”, “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion” and “justifications for not having ACP: avoid thinking about death”. However, Malay language is extensively use in the malay archipelago especially in Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, and spoken by approximately 220 million people [29]. Therefore, this study translated the English Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ) into Malay and aimed to validate the psychometric properties of the Malay Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ-M).

Methods

Validation of the ACPQ-M consists of two parts: translation of the validated English Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ) to Malay, and its validation and reliability testing.

Translation of the advance care planning questionnaire (ACPQ)

The final version of the English ACPQ was reduced to 60 items from 66 items after exploratory factor analysis in the previous study [28]. Approval to use the English ACPQ was obtained from the copyright holder, who is the corresponding author in this study. The English ACPQ was translated according to the Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process (Fig. 1) [30]. No problems were encountered during the pilot test. Hence, version 4 of the ACPQ-M was used.

Fig. 1
figure1

Translation of the Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ) from English to Malay

Validation of psychometric properties of the Malay advance care planning questionnaire (ACPQ-M)

Study design and setting

This validation study was conducted from January to June 2018 at an urban primary care clinic and a tertiary education institution in Malaysia.

Participants

The aim of our study was to validate the ACPQ-M among community dwellers i.e. ambulatory care patients as well as their family members, regardless of their health status; as the second phase of our study was to assess the readiness of community dwelling adults for ACP. Ambulatory care patients as well as their family members (i.e. community dwellers) who were ≥ 21 years and able to understand Malay were recruited using convenience sampling. Community dwellers with mental illnesses such as dementia or psychosis were excluded.

Sample size calculation

The sample size required to perform factor analysis was calculated based on rule of thumb of 10 participants per item [31, 32]. The number of items in the ACPQ that could be validated was 16 as the items had a 5-point Likert-scale response. Therefore, the total number of participants required was 16*10 = 160 participants. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 40% at retest [28], an additional 64 participants were recruited, bringing the total to 224 participants.

Instruments used

The Malay advance care planning questionnaire (ACPQ-M)

The ACPQ-M consists of four sections and 60 items (29 items were measure on nominal scale, whilst 31 items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale). Participants were required to answer all the items in section A, B and C of the ACPQ-M. Section A and B recorded the demographic and health information while section C focused on the knowledge of ACP [28]. As for section D of the ACPQ-M, those who were in in favour of ACP were asked to answer the items in the domain “justifications for ACP”; while those who were not in favour of ACP were asked to answer the items in the domain “justifications for not having ACP: avoid thinking about death” and “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion”.

Procedure

Eligible participants were approached, and the purpose of the study was explained to them using the participant information sheet. Written informed consent was obtained from those who agreed to participate. A researcher administered the ACPQ-M to participants via a face-to-face interview as this questionnaire contained some medical terms which may not be understood by the lay person. Each interview took between 10 to 20 min. The retest was performed 2 weeks later over the phone.

Data analyses

Data analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0 (Chicago, Illinois, USA). As normality could not be assumed, the central tendency was described as median and interquartile range (IQR), whilst descriptive data was presented as number and frequency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using Lavaan package in R software for statistical computing and graphics version 3.5.1 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) [33].

Validity

Face and content validity were verified by an expert panel (which consisted of two primary care physicians and three academic pharmacists as primary care physicians and pharmacists are currently involved in the field of ACP in Malaysia). Flesch reading ease, to test the readability of the instrument was not applied to ACPQ-M because the computer calculated score was not developed and validated for use in Malay language [34].

Factor analysis was used to determine the construct validity. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to explore the dimensionality of the ACPQ-M by computing the percentage of total variance explained, the number of factors and factor loadings to determine the degree of agreement between observed scores and latent variables [35]. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to test for intercorrelations between all the variables within the correlation matrix [36]. Sampling adequacies were determined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion and communalities of the variables. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, factor loading values and communalities of at least 0.6, 0.4 and 0.4, respectively, were deemed as having good construct validity [37].

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify the factor structure of the ACPQ-M [38]. The factor structure was examined by computing the model fit indices such as Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI); standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) using diagonally weighted least square method for categorical variables [35]. CFI and TLI values of at least 0.95 and SRMR value of ≤ 0.09 indicates goodness of fit [35]. Additionally, RMSEA p-value of < 0.05 also indicates acceptable level of model fit with the degree of fit being interpreted as such: RMSEA p-value < 0.05 close fit, 0.05 to < 0.08 reasonably good, 0.08 to < 0.10 mediocre, and ≥ 0.10 unacceptable [35, 39].

Reliability

As with previous psychometric validation of the English ACPQ, Cronbach’s α was used to assess the internal consistency of the items in the ACPQ-M [28]. Cronbach’s α values between 0.70–0.90 implied adequate internal consistency [40]. Corrected item-total correlations were used to identify items which were inconsistent with other items in the ACPQ-M. Corrected item-total correlation values < 0.2 were deemed as unacceptable [40].

Test-retest reliability was assessed using quadratic weighted Cohen’s kappa coefficient as the items for validation were measured as ordinal data on a 5 point Likert-scale [41]. Kappa value of + 1 indicates complete inter-rater agreement for the items, whereas Kappa value of − 1 at the other end of the continuum represents complete disagreement. The agreement level can be further interpreted as follows: < 0 most likely due to chance agreement, 0.01–0.20 slight agreement between inter-rater, 0.21–0.40 fair agreement, 0.41–0.60 moderate agreement, 0.61–0.80 substantial agreement and 0.81–1.00 almost perfect agreement [42].

Results

A total of 222/232 participants agreed to participate (response rate = 96.0%). The majority were female (72.1%) and Malay (54.1%), with a median age of 29 years (IQR = 12) (Table 1). A total of 200 (90.1%) participants were in favour of ACP.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of participants

Validity

EFA found that the ACPQ-M was a 4-factor model, which explained > 50% of the total variance of each domain (Table 2). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and factor loadings were > 0.6 and > 0.4, respectively. Communalities were > 0.4 except for the item “I believed that the discussion of the topic of death was seen as “unlucky” and I tried to avoid discussing about it”. Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were significant for all domains (p < 0.05).

Table 2 Exploratory factor analysis of the Malay Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ-M)

CFA found that the CFI values for the four domains ranged from 0.985–1.000; while the TLI values ranged from 0.956–1.000. The SRMR values for the domains “feelings regarding ACP”, “justifications for ACP” and “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion” were 0.021, 0.047 and 0.062, respectively. The p-value of RMSEA for the domains “feelings regarding ACP”, “justifications for ACP” and “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion” were 0.088, 0.045 and 0.339, respectively. SRMR and RMSEA for the domain “justifications for not having ACP: avoid thinking about death” were unable to be calculated probably due to inadequate data point or number of participants (df = 0, n = 8). RMSEA for the domain “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion” did not suggest good fit probably due to the similar reason of inadequate data point or number of participants (n = 8).

Reliability

The Cronbach’s α values for the four domains ranged from 0.674–0.947 (Table 3). The corrected item total correlation of all items was > 0.2. The deletion of item ‘I believed that the discussion of the topic of death was seen as “unlucky” and I tried to avoid discussing about it’ in the domain “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion” would increase the Cronbach’s α from 0.674 to 0.725.

Table 3 Reliability of the Malay Advance Care Planning Questionnaire (ACPQ-M)

Only 157/222 participants completed retest (response rate = 71%), as the remaining participants were either uncontactable (n = 7) or refused to participate at retest (n = 58). At test-retest, quadratic weighted kappa values for all domains ranged from 0.340–0.674; except for the domains “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion” and “justifications for not having ACP: avoid thinking about death” which ranged from −0.200-0.467.

Discussion

The ACPQ-M was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the KAP regarding ACP in Malaysia. The final version of the ACPQ-M consists of 4 sections and 60 items, of which 29 were measured on a nominal scale whilst 31 items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

Study on dimensionality using EFA showed that the ACPQ-M was a 4-factor model and a good model of fit. Our findings was similar to the English ACPQ [28]. The four domains were “feelings regarding ACP”, “justifications for ACP”, “justifications for not having ACP: avoid thinking about death” and “justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion”. There was adequate sampling in all domains (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin > 0.6). Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were also significant for all domains which implied that the correlations between items were sufficient for factor analysis. Additionally, adequate amount of the variance can be explained by the underlying factors as indicated by the communalities > 0.4 except for the item “I believed that the discussion of the topic of death was seen as unlucky and I tried to avoid discussing about it”. However, the factor loading for this item was > 0.4. Hence, this item was retained as patients were able to understand the questionnaire without issue during validation of the English ACPQ, and we wanted the two versions to be the same [28]. We were unable to compare our findings with any other studies as the previous studies involving validation of the KAP instrument did not perform EFA [14, 15].

Overall, the reliability of the ACPQ-M was satisfactory (ranged between 0.674–0.947). This was consistent with the reliability of English ACPQ [28] and comparable to a previous KAP study conducted on younger adults (0.76–0.93) [14]. However, the test-retest reliability computed using quadratic weighted kappa was low for two domains: “Justifications for not having ACP: fate and religion” and “Justifications for not having ACP: avoid thinking about death”. We believed this to be attributed to the small number of participants (n = 8) who were not in favour of advance care planning. The kappa values for these two domains of the ACPQ-M were also lower than the English ACPQ as more participants who were not in favour of ACP answered the English ACPQ (n = 55) as opposed to the ACPQ-M (n = 8) [28]. In addition, the English ACPQ study recruited older participants (median age = 68 years) when compared to the present study (median age = 29 years) [28]. The proportion of participants who favoured ACP was significantly higher than the previous study [28] could be due to the higher number of the young participants. A prior study has reported that younger adults tend to have more favourable attitudes toward ACP [14]. Similarly, we were unable to compare our findings with any other studies as the previous study which developed and validated the KAP instrument did not perform test-retest analysis [14, 15].

As decision making in ACP involved a complicated process [19], various instruments have been developed to measure the different aspects of ACP. Some instruments have been developed to elicit information regarding attitude towards patient autonomy [15] and to examine the difference in influence of cultural values and beliefs among African and White Americans towards ACP [16]. Other instruments were developed and validated to evaluate behaviour change as a result of an ACP intervention [17,18,19, 43] and to assess the role of surrogate decision makers of patients with chronic illness in ACP [44]. Most of the validated instruments were developed in Korean [15], English [14, 16, 17, 19], French [45] or Spanish languages [46]. To date, there is a lack of validated instruments that assessed the KAP of adults regarding ACP. Only one instrument that assessed the KAP among younger adults has been developed in the United States [14].

A study that assesses the KAP is needed to determine readiness of a population for advance care planning. Hence, it was necessary to translate and validate the ACPQ-M as Malay is the national language of Malaysia, so that Malaysians who speak Malay are able to answer the questionnaire in addition to the previously validated English ACPQ.

Limitations of the study

One of the limitations of the study was that convergent and discriminative validity were not performed. Convergent validity was not performed as there were no other validated instruments in Malay to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice during the period of our study. Discriminative validity was also not performed as it was not possible to identify participants who had high or low knowledge of ACP. In addition, a higher number of younger participants were recruited by chance due to convenience sampling. Younger adults (≥21 years) were recruited in this study as the subsequent phase of this study will assess the readiness of community dwelling adults regarding ACP. The inclusion of a younger age group may have the advantage of improving the validity and reliability of the ACPQ-M as this tool can be used to inform the readiness of community dwelling adults regarding ACP. However, the limitation is that our results may not be comparable to previous studies. Thirdly, it was not possible for us to conduct the retest “face to face” as participants were reluctant to come back to the hospital just to answer a questionnaire. However, the same researcher who recruited participants at baseline, re-administered the questionnaire again over the phone.

Strength of the study

Although cross cultural adaptation was not performed, this manuscript has described the validation process and the psychometric properties of the ACPQ-M. Despite the limitations, this study has validated the ACPQ-M and found that this tool had adequate psychometric properties. The tool can now be used to assess the KAP regarding ACP among Malaysians who are only able to understand Malay. Findings from the administration of this tool can assist policymakers to decide if Malaysians are ready for ACP to be legislated in Malaysia.

Conclusion

The ACPQ-M was found to be a 4-factor model, and a valid and reliable instrument to assess the KAP regarding ACP in Malaysia. This instrument can contribute to profound understanding of the KAP of Malaysians regarding ACP, and assist policy makers in determining the readiness for legislation of ACP in Malaysia.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ACP:

Advance care planning

ACPQ:

Advance care planning questionnaire

ACPQ-M:

Malay Advance care planning questionnaire

CFA:

Confimatory factor analysis

CFI:

Comparative Fit Index

EFA:

Exploratory factor analysis

IQR:

Inter-quartile range

KAP:

Knowledge, attitude and practice

RMSEA:

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SRMR:

Standardised Root Mean Square Residual

TLI:

Tucker Lewis Index

References

  1. 1.

    Sudore RL, Lum HD, You JJ, Hanson LC, Meier DE, Pantilat SZ, et al. Defining Advance Care Planning for Adults: A Consensus Definition From a Multidisciplinary Delphi Panel. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2017;53(5):821–32.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Perez Mdel V, Macchi MJ, Agranatti AF. Advance directives in the context of end-of-life palliative care. Curr Opin Supportive Palliative Care. 2013;7(4):406–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Levy C, Morris M, Kramer A. Improving end-of-life outcomes in nursing homes by targeting residents at high-risk of mortality for palliative care: program description and evaluation. J Palliat Med. 2008;11(2):217–25. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2007.0147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Garrido MM, Balboni TA, Maciejewski PK, Bao Y, Prigerson HG. Quality of life and cost of Care at the end of life: the role of advance directives. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2015;49(5):828–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.09.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, Balan S, Brokaw FC, Seville J, et al. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(7):741–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1198.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2010;340:c1345.

  7. 7.

    Heyland DK, Barwich D, Pichora D, Dodek P, Lamontagne F, You JJ, et al. Failure to engage hospitalized elderly patients and their families in advance care planning. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):778–87. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Stein GL, Fineberg IC. Advance care planning in the USA and UK: a comparative analysis of policy, implementation and the social work role. Br J Soc Work. 2013;43(2):233–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Fountain S, Nolte L, Wills M, Kelly H, Detering K. Review of advance care planning laws across Australia: short report. Melbourne: Advance Care Planning Australia, Austin Health; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Jahn Kassim P, Alias F. Advance Healthcare Directives: The Emerging Global Trends and Shari'ah Perspectives; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hing Wong A, Chin LE, Ping TL, Peng NK, Kun LS. Clinical impact of education provision on determining advance care planning decisions among end stage renal disease patients receiving regular hemodialysis in university Malaya medical Centre. Indian J Palliat Care. 2016;22(4):437–45. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1075.191788.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Htut Y, Shahrul K, Poi PJ. The views of older Malaysians on advanced directive and advanced care planning: a qualitative study. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2007;19(3):58–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/101053950701900310.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kavalieratos D, Ernecoff NC, Keim-Malpass J, Degenholtz HB. Knowledge, attitudes, and preferences of healthy young adults regarding advance care planning: a focus group study of university students in Pittsburgh, USA. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(197). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1575-y.

  14. 14.

    Schnur K, Radhakrishnan K. Young adult knowledge and readiness to engage in advance care planning behaviors. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2019;21(1):54–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/NJH.0000000000000487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Blackhall LJ, Murphy ST, Frank G, Michel V, Azen S. Ethnicity and attitudes toward patient autonomy. JAMA. 1995;274(10):820–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530100060035.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bullock K. The influence of culture on end-of-life decision making. J Soc Work End Life Palliative Care. 2011;7(1):83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15524256.2011.548048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fried TR, Redding CA, Robbins ML, Paiva A, O'Leary JR, Iannone L. Promoting advance care planning as health behavior change: development of scales to assess decisional balance, medical and religious beliefs, and processes of change. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sudore RL, Heyland DK, Barnes DE, Howard M, Fassbender K, Robinson CA, et al. Measuring Advance Care Planning: Optimizing the Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2017;53(4):669–81.e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sudore RL, Stewart AL, Knight SJ, McMahan RD, Feuz M, Miao Y, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire to detect behavior change in multiple advance care planning behaviors. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e72465. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072465.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Tay M, Chia SE, Sng J. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of the advance medical directive in a residential estate in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2010;39(6):424–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ng QX, Kuah TZ, Loo GJ, Ho WH, Wagner NL, Sng JG, et al. Awareness and attitudes of community-dwelling individuals in Singapore towards participating in advance care planning. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2017;46(3):84–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    El-Den S, Schneider C, Mirzaei A, Carter S. How to measure a latent construct: psychometric principles for the development and validation of measurement instruments. Int J Pharm Pract. 2020;28(4):326–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jang Y, Park NS, Chiriboga D, Radhakrishnan K, Kim MT. The knowing-doing gap in advance directives in Asian Americans: the role of education and acculturation. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2017;34(9):874–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909116668518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kwon SA, Kolomer S. Advance care planning in South Korea: social work perspective. Soc Work Health Care. 2016;55(7):545–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2016.1186132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Akabayashi A, Slingsby BT, Kai I. Perspectives on advance directives in Japanese society: a population-based questionnaire survey. BMC Med Ethics. 2003;4:E5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lee JC, Chen PP, Yeo JK, So HY. Hong Kong Chinese teachers' attitudes towards life-sustaining treatment in the dying patients. Hong Kong Med J. 2003;9(3):186–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ohr S, Jeong S, Saul P. Cultural and religious beliefs and values, and their impact on preferences for end-of-life care among four ethnic groups of community-dwelling older persons. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(11–12):1681–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13572.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lai PS, Mohd Mudri S, Chinna K, Othman S. The development and validation of the advance care planning questionnaire in Malaysia. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0147-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ethnologue. Languages of the World. Dallas: SIL International; 2019. [cited 2019 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.ethnologue.com

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Everitt BS. Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems. Br J Psychiatry. 1975;126(3):237–40. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.126.3.237.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Cattell RB. The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum; 1978. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2262-7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. 2012;48(2):36.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Amalina N, Zakaria M, Hisham S. SPIKE: Online reading competencies measure for Malay language, vol. 8; 2016. p. 123–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Woods CM, Edwards MC. Factor analysis and related methods. In: Rao CR, Miller JP, Rao DC, editors. Statiscal methods for medical statistics. Oxford: Elsevier; 2011. p. 174–98.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hoyle RH. 16 - Confirmatory Factor Analysis A2 - Tinsley, Howard E.A. In: Brown SD, editor. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000. p. 465–97.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Wild D, Eremenco S, Mear I, Martin M, Houchin C, Gawlicki M, et al. Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: the ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):430-40.

  39. 39.

    Hartman R. CFA in lavaan 2018 [cited 2018 20th Nov]. Available from: http://www.understandingdata.net/2017/03/22/cfa-in-lavaan/#refs.

  40. 40.

    Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;314(7080):572.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012;22(3):276–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017;11(Suppl 1):S80–S9. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_203_17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Howard M, Day AG, Bernard C, Tan A, You J, Klein D, et al. Development and psychometric properties of a survey to assess barriers to implementing advance care planning in primary care. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2018;55(1):12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Van Scoy LJ, Day AG, Howard M, Sudore R, Heyland DK. Adaptation and Preliminary Validation of the Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey for Surrogate Decision Makers. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2019;57(5):980–8.e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Heyland D, Dodek P, Lamontagne F, You J, Barwich D, Tayler C, et al. The development and validation of a questionnaire to audit advance care planning (ACP). BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2012;2(2):175–6.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Shi Y, Barnes DE, Boscardin J, You JJ, Heyland DK, Volow AM, et al. Brief English and Spanish Survey Detects Change in Response to Advance Care Planning Interventions. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2019;58(6):1068–74.e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Hanisuhana binti Hamidon for her assistance in data collection.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University Malaya Research Grant [grant number RP048D-17HTM]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MKL, PSML, PSW, SO, FHMM conceived the study, participated in the design and reviewed the translated versions of the questionnaire; PSML is the copyright holder of the English ACPQ, MKL was involved in data acquisition; MKL and PSML performed the analysis and interpretation of data; MKL drafted the manuscript; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pauline Siew Mei Lai.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the University Malaya Medical Centre Medical Ethics Committee prior to the study (MEC reference no. 20171118–5830). Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants using the Consent Form Validation Version 1 (041117) prior to their interview.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lim, M.K., Lai, P.S.M., Wong, P.S. et al. Validation of the psychometric properties of the Malay advance care planning questionnaire. BMC Palliat Care 20, 109 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-021-00790-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Advance care planning
  • Psychometric properties
  • Validation
  • Malaysia