Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Equivalent psychometric properties of translated measurement are critical to guarantee the effectiveness of a measure in a different language. This study translated, adapted, and evaluated the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey in Bahasa Indonesia (EMAS-BI). Factor analysis and convergent validity were employed in data collected from a cross-sectional study involving Indonesian college students. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a three-factor structure that was substantiated by confirmatory factor analysis. A second-order, unidimensional model fit the data equally well. A sufficient validity and reliability were reported using model fit, intraclass correlation, and Cronbach’s alpha. Meaningful activities were positively correlated with quality of life and flourishing, but negatively correlated with depression. EMAS-BI has good psychometric properties based on the samples collected from Indonesian college student population. Future study should assess EMAS psychometric properties in other populations in Indonesia.

Plain Language Summary

Translation and Validation of the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Surveys in Bahasa Indonesia

Meaningful activities are core to occupational therapy practice and possess potential for research. Thus, these studies assessed the construct of meaningful activities through psychometric evaluation of the Bahasa Indonesia version of Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey (EMAS-BI). The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis indicated a three-factor structure: personal competence component, social competence component, and personal needs component. These three-factors were sufficiently nested under a higher-order meaningful activities factor, indicating the EMAS is assessing a unidimensional construct. The EMAS-BI demonstrated very good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. In addition, positive correlations were found between meaningful activities, quality of life, and flourishing and a negative correlation with depression. These findings support the EMAS-BI as a valid and reliable assessment of meaningful activity engagement and provide a tool for occupational therapists to design and test effective occupation-based interventions.

Keywords

meaningful activities factor analysis measurement properties

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abma

I. L.

Rovers

Van Der Wees

P. J.

(2016). Appraising convergent validity of patient-reported outcome measures in systematic reviews: Constructing hypotheses and interpreting outcomes. BMC Research Notes, 9(1), Article 226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2034-2

Ahad

N. A.

Yin

T. S.

Othman

A. R.

Yaacob

C. R.

(2011). Sensitivity of normality tests to non-normal data. Sains Malaysiana, 40(6), 637–641.

Alavi

Visentin

D. C.

Thapa

D. K.

Hunt

G. E.

Watson

Cleary

(2020). Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(9), 2209–2211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399

Albano

(2020). Factor analysis [Webpage]. Thetaminusb. https://www.thetaminusb.com/intro-measurement-r/dimensionality.html#confirmatory-factor-analysis

Basker

Moses

P. D.

Russell

P. S. S.

(2007). The psychometric properties of Beck Depression Inventory for adolescent depression in a primary-care paediatric setting in India. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 1(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-1-8

Brown

T. A.

(2023). Confirmatory factor analysis. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed., pp. 261–276). The Guilford Press.

Brożek

Tokarz

(2017). The Polish adaptation of the engagement in meaningful activities survey (EMAS). Roczniki Psychologiczne, 20(4), 913–929. https://doi.org/10.18290/rpsych.2017.20.4-6en

Campos

R. C.

Gonçalves

(2011). The Portuguese version of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): Preliminary psychometric data with two nonclinical samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000072

Cheraghifard

Akbarfahimi

Azad

Eakman

A. M.

Taghizadeh

(2022). Validation of the Persian Version of the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey (EMAS) in an Iranian stroke population: Predictors of participation in meaningful activities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(4), 7604205130. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.046623

10.

Cheung

Y. B.

Yeo

K. K.

Chong

K. J.

Khoo

E. Y.

Wee

H. L.

(2017). Reliability and validity of the English-, Chinese- and Malay-language versions of the World Health Organization quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 46(12), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V46N12p461

11.

Clark

L. A.

Watson

(2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626

12.

Cruyt

De Vriendt

De Letter

Vlerick

Calders

De Pauw

Oostra

Rodriguez-Bailón

Szmalec

Merchán-Baeza

J. A.

Fernández-Solano

A. J.

Vidaña-Moya

Van de Velde

(2021). Meaningful activities during COVID-19 lockdown and association with mental health in Belgian adults. BMC Public Health, 21(1), Article 622. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10673-4

13.

Cruyt

Jarrey

Eijkelkamp

Vlerick

De Letter

Oostra

Calders

De Pauw

Costenoble

Bautmans

Van De Velde

De Vriendt

(2023). Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the engagement in meaningful activities survey. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 86(11), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226231187827

14.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

15.

Dunn

T. J.

Baguley

Brunsden

(2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046

16.

Eakman

A. M.

(2012). Measurement characteristics of the engagement in meaningful activities survey in an age-diverse sample. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(2), e20–e29. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.001867

17.

Eakman

A. M.

Atler

K. E.

Rumble

Gee

B. M.

Romriell

Hardy

(2018). A qualitative research synthesis of positive subjective experiences in occupation from the Journal of Occupational Science (1993–2010). Journal of Occupational Science, 25(3), 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2018.1492958

18.

Eakman

A. M.

Carlson

M. E.

Clark

F. A.

(2010). Factor structure, reliability, and convergent validity of the engagement in meaningful activities survey for older adults. OTJR: Occupation, Participation, Health, 30(3), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.3928/15394492-20090518-01

19.

Eklund

(2023). Occupational value outcomes among people with mental health issues participating in activity-based interventions—The importance of internal and external factors. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 30(6), 853–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2023.2184718

20.

Everett

J. E.

(1983). Factor comparability as a means of determining the number of factors and their rotation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1802_5

21.

Gholami

Jahromi

L. M.

Zarei

Dehghan

(2013). Application of WHOQOL-BREF in measuring quality of life in health-care staff. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4(7).

22.

Goldberg

Brintnell

E. S.

Goldberg

(2002). The relationship between engagement in meaningful activities and quality of life in persons disabled by mental illness. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 18(2), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J004v18n02_03

23.

Goretzko

Pham

T. T. H.

Bühner

(2021). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3510–3521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2

24.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447

25.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

26.

Jackson

D. L.

Gillaspy

J. A.

Purc-Stephenson

(2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014694

27.

Kawakatsu

Yokoi

Tanno

Eakman

A. M.

Hirayama

(2022). Development of the Japanese version of the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 42(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/15394492221090624

28.

Lacroix

P.-A.

Pelletier

A.-J.

Blondin

M.-P.

Dugal

Langlois

Levasseur

Larivière

(2018). Traduction et validation du questionnaire sur l’Engagement Dans les Activités Signifiantes: Translation and validation of the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 85(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417417702925

29.

Ledesma

R. D.

Valero-Mora

de Valencia

(2007). Determining the Number of Factors to Retain in EFA: An easy-to- use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis, 12(2), 1–11.

30.

Lorenzo-Seva

(2021). SOLOMON: A method for splitting a sample into equivalent subsamples in factor analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 54(6), 2665–2677. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01750-y

31.

Mahendradhata

Trisnantoro

Listyadewi

Soewondo

Marthias

Harimurti

Prawira

(2017). The republic of Indonesia health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 7(1). https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/254716

32.

Maulana

Khawaja

Obst

(2021). An Indonesian model of well-being: The integration of universal and cultural factors. PsyCh Journal, 10(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.402

33.

Maulana

Obst

Khawaja

(2018). Indonesian perspective of wellbeing: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3508

34.

Mokkink

L. B.

Terwee

C. B.

Patrick

D. L.

Alonso

Stratford

P. W.

Knol

D. L.

Bouter

L. M.

De Vet

H. C. W.

(2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006

35.

Nurcahyo

F. A.

Valentina

T. D.

(2023). The Indonesian version of the flourishing scale: Is it reliable and valid for Indonesian people? Evaluation & the Health Professions, 47, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231215316

36.

Prat

Ribot

Recoder

Muñoz

(2019). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey in people with serious mental illness. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 82(12), 743–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022619856557

37.

Razali

N. M.

Wah

Y. B.

(2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–23.

38.

Sajatovic

Chen

Young

R. C.

(2015). Rating scales in bipolar disorder. In Clinical trial design challenges in mood disorders (pp. 105–136). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405170-6.00009-9

39.

Schotanus-Dijkstra

Drossaert

C. H. C.

Pieterse

M. E.

Boon

Walburg

J. A.

Bohlmeijer

E. T.

(2017). An early intervention to promote well-being and flourishing and reduce anxiety and depression: A randomized controlled trial. Internet Interventions, 9, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2017.04.002

40.

Silva

A. J.

Caetano

(2013). Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of positive and negative experience in Portugal. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9938-y

41.

Strauss

M. E.

Smith

G. T.

(2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639

42.

VanderWeele

T. J.

(2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8148–8156. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702996114

43.

Von Steinbüchel

Lischetzke

Gurny

Eid

. (2006). Assessing quality of life in older people: Psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF. European Journal of Ageing, 3(2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-006-0024-2

44.

Watkins

M. W.

(2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807

45.

Westerhof

G. J.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(2010). Mental illness and mental health: The two continua model across the lifespan. Journal of Adult Development, 17(2), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9082-y

46.

WHO. (1996). WHOQOL-BREF: Introduction, administration, scoring, and generic version of the assessment. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/63529/WHOQOL-BREF.pdf?sequence=1

47.

Wild

Grove

Martin

Eremenco

McElroy

Verjee-Lorenz

Erikson

(2005). 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 in Health, 8(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

48.

Yerxa

E. J.

(2000). Occupational science: A renaissance of service to humankind through knowledge. Occupational Therapy International, 7(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.109

Translation and Evaluation of the Indonesian Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References