Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The Swedish version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale (s-MSES) – translation process and psychometric properties in a community setting

Spinal Cord volume 62, pages 71–78 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Study design

Psychometric study.

Objectives

To i) describe the translation process and ii) explore the data completeness, targeting, reliability and aspects of validity of the Swedish version of Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale (s-MSES).

Settings

Community rehabilitation program.

Methods

Ninety-two program participants and 42 peer mentors with spinal cord injury (SCI) in Active Rehabilitation training programs (enrolled in the International Project for the Evaluation of activE Rehabilitation (Inter-PEER)) were included. The s-MSES was completed online, once for program participants and twice for peer mentors. The translation process was based on guidelines and involved researchers, clinicians and consumers.

Results

Minor linguistic adaptations were made. Ninety-one percent obtained a total score. As expected, peer mentors exhibited ceiling effects in all subscales. Cronbach´s alpha for the total scale was 0.92 (subscales 0.74–0.83). The intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent for the total and subscale scores (0.78–0.91). The s-MSES exhibited sensitivity to changes and there were no systematic changes between evaluation points. The s-MSES correlated significantly and positively with life satisfaction and resilience, and negatively with depression/anxiety.

Conclusion

The s-MSES was translated through a rigorous, consumer-involved process ensuring accurate linguistic translation and cultural adaptation. Our results support the data completeness, targeting, reliability and aspects of validity of the s-MSES. The s-MSES can thus be considered suitable to assess self-efficacy in persons with SCI in community rehabilitation settings. The now available Swedish version of the MSES will facilitate national research, clinical evaluations and international comparisons.

Sponsorship

Not applicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Translation process.
Fig. 2: Bland-Altman plot.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data were archived according to the Swedish Act concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. van Diemen T, Crul T, van Nes I, Geertzen JH, Post MW. Associations between self-efficacy and secondary health conditions in people living with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98:2566–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.03.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van Diemen T, Craig A, van Nes IJW, Stolwijk-Swuste JM, Geertzen JHB, Middleton J, et al. Enhancing our conceptual understanding of state and trait self-efficacy by correlational analysis of four self-efficacy scales in people with spinal cord injury. BMC Psychol. 2020;8:108 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00474-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Craig A, Tran Y, Guest R, Middleton J. Trajectories of Self-Efficacy and Depressed Mood and Their Relationship in the First 12 Months Following Spinal Cord Injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:441–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coker J, Cuthbert J, Ketchum JM, Holicky R, Huston T, Charlifue S. Re-inventing yourself after spinal cord injury: a site-specific randomized clinical trial. Spinal Cord. 2019;57:282–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-018-0230-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu T, Xie S, Wang Y, Tang J, He X, Yan T, et al. Effects of App-Based Transitional Care on the Self-Efficacy and Quality of Life of Patients With Spinal Cord Injury in China: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9:e22960 https://doi.org/10.2196/22960.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhattarai M, Jin Y, Smedema SM, Cadel KR, Baniya M. The relationships among self-efficacy, social support, resilience, and subjective well-being in persons with spinal cord injuries. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77:221–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Geyh S, Nick E, Stirnimann D, Ehrat S, Michel F, Peter C, et al. Self-efficacy and self-esteem as predictors of participation in spinal cord injury—an ICF-based study. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:699–706. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Middleton J, Tran Y, Craig A. Relationship between quality of life and self-efficacy in persons with spinal cord injuries. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:1643–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Craig A, Tran Y, Siddall P, Wijesuriya N, Lovas J, Bartrop R, et al. Developing a model of associations between chronic pain, depressive mood, chronic fatigue, and self-efficacy in people with spinal cord injury. J Pain. 2013;14:911–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.03.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M Generalised self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio causal and control beliefs. Windsor: Nfer-Nelson; 1995, p. 35–37

  12. Amtmann D, Bamer AM, Cook KF, Askew RL, Noonan VK, Brockway JA. University of Washington self-efficacy scale: a new self-efficacy scale for people with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:1757–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marquez MA, Speroni A, Galeoto G, Ruotolo I, Sellitto G, Tofani M, et al. The Moorong Self Efficacy Scale: translation, cultural adaptation, and validation in Italian; cross sectional study, in people with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2022;8:22 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-022-00492-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Rajati F, Ghanbari M, Hasandokht T, Hosseini SY, Akbarzadeh R, Ashtarian H. Persian version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale: psychometric study among subjects with physical disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:2436–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1226404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gounelle M, Cousson-Gelie F, Nicolas B, Kerdraon J, Gault D, Tournebise H, et al. French cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Moorong Self-Efficacy scale: the MSES-FR, a measure of Self-Efficacy for French people with spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2021:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.2003452.

  16. Divanoglou A, Tasiemski T, Jörgensen S. INTERnational Project for the Evaluation of “activE Rehabilitation” (inter-PEER) - a protocol for a prospective cohort study of community peer-based training programmes for people with spinal cord injury. BMC Neurol. 2020;20:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1546-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Middleton JW, Tate RL, Geraghty TJ. Self-Efficacy and Spinal Cord Injury: Psychometric Properties of a New Scale. Rehabil Psychol. 2003;48:281–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.48.4.281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brooks J, Smedema SM, Tu W-M, Eagle D, Catalano D, Chan F. Psychometric Validation of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale in People With Spinal Cord Injury. Rehab Couns Bull. 2014;58:54–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355214523506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller SM. The measurement of self-efficacy in persons with spinal cord injury: psychometric validation of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:988–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280802378025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Middleton JW, Tran Y, Lo C, Craig A. Reexamining the Validity and Dimensionality of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale: Improving Its Clinical Utility. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:2130–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.05.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wahman K, Nilsson E, Antepohl W, Samuelsson K, Åkesson E, Kuhlefelt Sandberg A, et al. Translation and validation of two International Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Data Sets-a modified process. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2019;5:105 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-019-0250-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fekete C, Post MWM, Bickenbach J, Middleton J, Prodinger B, Selb M, et al. A Structured Approach to Capture the Lived Experience of Spinal Cord Injury: Data Model and Questionnaire of the International Spinal Cord Injury Community Survey. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. Third edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited; 2013.

  25. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Fifth edition. New York, New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.003.0011.

  26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical Methods for assessing Agreement between two Methods of Clinical Measurement. The Lancet. 1986:307–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.

  27. Lexell JE, Downham DY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84:719–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000176452.17771.20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:176 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955.014.0176-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Vet HCW de, Bouter LM, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs: User manual version 1.0. Available at: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-methodology-for-content-validity-user-manual-v1.pdf.

  30. Guest R, Craig A, Tran Y, Middleton J. Factors predicting resilience in people with spinal cord injury during transition from inpatient rehabilitation to the community. Spinal Cord. 2015;53:682–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cijsouw A, Adriaansen JJE, Tepper M, Dijksta CA, van Linden S, de Groot S, et al. Associations between disability-management self-efficacy, participation and life satisfaction in people with long-standing spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:47–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all participants in the study. We also thank RG Active Rehabilitation and Veronika Lyckow for being valuable partners in this initiative. We acknowledge Erik Berndtsson (EB), Emelie Butler Forslund (EBF), Ph.D., Richard Levi (RL), Ph.D., Ulrica Lundström (UL), Ph.D., Erika Nilsson (EN), BA for being involved in the translation process. Furthermore, we acknowledge professional translator Gunilla Lyckow, Vasiliki Panteli for assistance in data collection, and Noel Grehan (NG) and Tobias Lauritzen (TL) for assisting in the translation process. EB was responsible for contacting the peer mentors and coordinated the data collection together with AD.

Funding

Funding

This study was funded in part by the Promobilia Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nursing Science, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Jasmin Mangold

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Jasmin Mangold & Anestis Divanoglou

  3. John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Australia

    James W. Middleton

  4. Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    James W. Middleton

  5. Spinal Outreach Service, Royal Rehab, Ryde, Australia

    James W. Middleton

  6. Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Sophie Jörgensen

  7. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden

    Sophie Jörgensen

Authors
  1. Jasmin Mangold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anestis Divanoglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James W. Middleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sophie Jörgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AD conceived the inter-PEER and is the principal investigator. AD, JaMa and SJ designed the present study and AD and JaMa performed the statistical analyses which were interpreted together with SJ. JaMa, SJ, and AD drafted the manuscript. JM reviewed the manuscript and provided comments and revisions. SJ was responsible for the translation process together with AD. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and have read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie Jörgensen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All participants received written and verbal information about the Inter-PEER, and all gave their written informed consent before enrolment. Ethical Approval was provided by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (approval number 2018/313-31/5; 2019-01032). The Declaration of Helsinki for research on humans was followed throughout the research process.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mangold, J., Divanoglou, A., Middleton, J.W. et al. The Swedish version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale (s-MSES) – translation process and psychometric properties in a community setting. Spinal Cord 62, 71–78 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00948-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00948-5

Search

Advanced search

Quick links