161
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Psychometric properties and predictive validity of the PP-ACT

, PhDORCID Icon, , PhDORCID Icon, , PhDORCID Icon, , PhDORCID Icon, , MDORCID Icon, , PhD, MPHORCID Icon & , PhD, MPHORCID Icon show all
Pages 174-184 | Received 19 Oct 2021, Accepted 27 Jan 2022, Published online: 14 Feb 2022
 

Abstract

Objective

The Parent Proxy Asthma Control Test (PP-ACT) is a self-report measure of asthma control completed by caregivers on behalf of a child. We examined the psychometric properties and the reliability and predictive validity of the PP-ACT.

Methods

We conducted two studies (one cross-sectional, one longitudinal over three months) that surveyed caregivers (N = 1622) of children with asthma. Caregivers completed the PP-ACT and a variety of other measures, including child health outcomes.

Results

We found clear evidence that the five-item PP-ACT assesses two distinct constructs: Items 1–4 (which we call the PP-ACT4) assess symptoms, impairment, and use of a short acting beta-2 blocker (albuterol); Item 5 assesses caregivers’ global subjective assessment of their child’s asthma control. In addition, the two constructs function as unique predictors of asthma outcomes. Both the PP-ACT4 and Item 5 predicted unique variance in ED visits, the number of symptom-free days, and child quality of life. Only the PP-ACT4 predicted frequency of ICS use and only at Time 1 in Study 1. Conversely, Item 5 predicted exacerbation frequency whereas the PP-ACT4 did not.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that researchers and clinicians should treat the PP-ACT4 and Item 5 as distinct indicators of asthma control because they differentially predict asthma outcomes and likely have distinct meanings to caregivers.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2022.2036755 .

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01HL137680, MPI Erika Waters, James Shepperd) and the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant UL1TR002345 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the NIH. The funder had no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the manuscript.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.