Geriatrics (May 2024)

Validation of the Internal Coherence Scale (ICS) in Healthy Geriatric Individuals and Patients Suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Cancer

  • Annette Mehl,
  • Anne-Kathrin Klaus,
  • Marcus Reif,
  • Daniela Rodrigues Recchia,
  • Roland Zerm,
  • Thomas Ostermann,
  • Benno Brinkhaus,
  • Matthias Kröz

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics9030063
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 3
p. 63

Abstract

Read online

Background: With increased life expectancy, the coexistence of functional impairment and multimorbidity can negatively impact life quality and coherence in geriatric individuals. The self-report 10-item Internal Coherence (ICS) measures how individuals cope with and make sense of disease-specific life challenges. The aim of this study was to validate the ICS in a sample of geriatric individuals. Methods and Procedure: In a cross-sectional study, geriatric individuals with and without chronic diseases were recruited. A factor analysis with principal component extraction (PCA) and a structural equation model (SEM) was conducted to assess the ICS factor structure in a geriatric sample. To measure convergent validity, the following scales were used: Short Health Survey (SF-12), Karnofsky Performance Index (KPI), Trait autonomic regulation (Trait aR), Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC), and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Results: A sample of n = 104 (70–96 years of age) patients with Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (n = 22), cancer diseases (n = 31) and healthy controls (n = 51) completed the ICS. PCA and SEM yielded the original two-factor solution: 1. Inner resilience and coherence and 2. Thermo coherence. Overall internal consistency for this cohort was satisfying (Cronbach’s α with rα = 0.72), and test-retest reliability was moderate (rrt = 0.53). ICS scores were significantly correlated to all convergent criteria ranging between r = 0.22 * and 0.49 ** (p p < 0.01 **). Conclusion: Study results suggest that the ICS appears to be a reliable and valid tool to measure internal coherence in a geriatric cohort (70–96 years). However, moderate test-retest reliability prompts the consideration of potential age-effects that may bias the reliability for this specific cohort.

Keywords