The study population was comprised of 388 patients, 215 women and 173 men, aged between 16 and 74 years (mean = 36.94 ± 10.294) (
Table 1).
| Items | Scale Variance with Question Removal | Scale Variance with Question Removal | Correlated Whole Correction | Cronbach’s Alpha by Removing the Question | Min | Max | Mean ± SD |
|---|
| Have you been craving amphetamine or methamphetamine? | 20.43 | 40.93 | 0.033 | 0.70 | Total score |
| Have you felt sad? | 19.48 | 34.09 | 0.547 | 0.66 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 2.20 ± 0.65 |
| Have you lost interest in things or no longer take pleasure in them? | 19.92 | 36.14 | 0.36 | 0.69 | | | |
| Have you felt anxious? | 19.4 | 35.34 | 0.47 | 0.68 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 1.99 ± 0.83 |
| Have you felt as if your movements are slow? | 19.63 | 33.1 | 0.55 | 0.66 | | | |
| Have you felt agitated? | 19.53 | 33.57 | 0.55 | 0.66 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 2.30 ± 0.89 |
| Have you felt tired? | 19.2 | 35.52 | 0.50 | 0.67 | | | |
| Has your appetite increased, or have you eaten too much? | 20.15 | 38.81 | 0.18 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 2.18 ± 0.79 |
| Have you had any vivid or unpleasant dreams? | 19.91 | 34.82 | 0.43 | 0.68 | | | |
| Have you been craving for sleep or sleeping too much? | 19.94 | 38.14 | 0.21 | 0.71 | | | |
Internal consistency and Cronbach’s alpha were utilized to assess the reliability of the data based on a 1-time administration of the questionnaire. The results revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72. Below, a more detailed examination of the descriptive properties of the research instrument is provided.
The mean and scale variance were reported after removing each item (
Table 1). Based on the corrected Pearson’s correlation coefficient, the correlation between each score and the total score was high, showing the acceptability of the items. It was also observed that the reliability was decreased or changed minimally by the removal of each item. Moreover, the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed the normality of the distribution of the variables (P > 0.05).
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett test of sphericity were performed. The value of the KMO test was 0.81, denoting a sufficient sample size. Also, the Bartlett test of sphericity yielded a χ2 of 812.38 and a P value of less than 0.001. Therefore, it was possible to perform the factor analysis.
Based on the results obtained from
Table 2, it is clear that the three factors have eigenvalue higher than one, and together explain about 58% of the variance of the questionnaire such that factor 1 is 32.64%, factor 2 is 13.82%, and factor 3 is 11.26% (
Table 3).
| Items | Questions | Rotational Element Matrix |
|---|
| Elements |
|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|
| Q7 | Have you felt tired? | 0.762 | | |
| Q6 | Have you felt agitated? | 0.772 | | |
| Q5 | Have you felt as if your movements are slow? | 0.740 | | |
| Q4 | Have you felt anxious? | 0.731 | | |
| Q2 | Have you felt sad? | 0.683 | | |
| Q8 | Has your appetite increased, or have you eaten too much? | | 0.799 | |
| Q10 | Have you been craving for sleep or sleeping too much? | | 0.751 | |
| Q1 | Have you been craving amphetamine or methamphetamine? | | | 0.831 |
| Q3 | Have you lost interest in things or no longer 6. Take pleasure in them? | | | 0.550 |
| Q9 | Have you had any vivid or unpleasant dreams? | | | 0.319 |
| Items | Primary Specials | Total Squared of Extracted Loads | Total Squared of Extracted Loads |
|---|
| Total | Percentage of Variance | Cumulative Percent | Total | Percentage of Variance | Cumulative Percent | Total | Percentage of Variance | Cumulative Percent |
|---|
| 1 | 3.264 | 32.641 | 32.641 | 3.264 | 32.641 | 32.641 | 3.038 | 30.38 | 30.38 |
| 2 | 1.382 | 13.82 | 46.461 | 1.382 | 13.82 | 46.461 | 1.517 | 15.171 | 45.552 |
| 3 | 1.126 | 11.263 | 57.724 | 1.126 | 11.263 | 57.724 | 1.217 | 12.172 | 57.724 |
| 4 | 0.838 | 8.383 | 66.107 | | | | | | |
| 5 | 0.766 | 7.66 | 73.767 | | | | | | |
| 6 | 0.663 | 6.63 | 80.398 | | | | | | |
| 7 | 0.581 | 5.813 | 86.211 | | | | | | |
| 8 | 0.526 | 5.259 | 91.471 | | | | | | |
| 9 | 0.454 | 4.544 | 96.014 | | | | | | |
| 10 | 0.399 | 3.986 | 100 | | | | | | |
It is clear, based on
Table 2, that the three factors had an eigenvalue of above 0.5. These 3 factors explained approximately 58% of the total variance of the questionnaire (32.64, 13.82, and 11.26% for the first, second, and third factors, respectively) (
Table 2). The scree plot showed the distinction between these three factors compared with the rest.
It was evident that, except for the third factor, almost all the other factors were placed on a slope.
The scree plots were used to determine the number of factors. For this purpose, given the diagram slope, the factors identified in the diagram steep slope were considered the main factors, and the factors parallel to the slope line axis were avoided. The scree plot contributed to the identification of the three factors as the components of the AWQV2 questionnaire. Accordingly, the scree plot below illustrates the distinction between the three factors relative to the rest and followed by the third factor; the remaining factors are almost on the same slope (
Figure 1).
Scree plot shows the three factors of the AWQV2 questionnaire
Confirmatory factor analysis and varimax rotation were used to verify the validity of the AWQV2 scale. The confirmatory factor analysis results showed that all items had a significant load factor, greater than 0.319 (the minimum acceptable rate = 0.31) (P = 0.0001), and as explicated in the original study, the items were loaded on the self-loading factors.
Thus, the items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 were loaded on factor 1 (i.e. reverse vegetative); the items 8 and 10 were loaded on factor 2 (i.e. anxiety); the items 1, 9, 3 were loaded on factor 3 (i.e. hyperarousal). The three factors explained 0.58 of the total variance, and as the general model was properly fitted, all of the items remained on the assumed factors (
Figure 2).
Localization statistics of the AWQV2 questionnaire’s questions on the three-factor model
Based on the commonly used criteria, a model with a goodness-of-fit index of above 0.9 is an acceptable model. Nevertheless, it determined a cut-off point of 0.95 for goodness-of-fit indices. Root mean square error of approximation of below 0.05, 0.05 to 0.08, 0.08 to 0.1, and above 0.1 shows a good, acceptable, average, and weak fit of the model, respectively (
Table 4). Based on the values presented in the table, it is clear that the indices showed a good fit of the model. Therefore, the 3-factor model was confirmed with the confirmatory factor analysis (
25).
| Statistical Title | χ2 | χ2/DF | DF | RMSEA | GFI | AGFI | CFI | NFI |
|---|
| Desired limit | | | | ≤ 0.08 | ≥ 0.9 | ≥ 0.9 | ≥ 0.9 | ≥ 0.9 |
| Estimate | 04.04 | 2.93 | 32 | 0.071 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.93 |
Our results confirmed the three factors of the hyperarousal subscale score, the anxiety subscale score, and the reversed vegetative subscale score; nevertheless, different numbers of items were found for each factor.
The convergent validity of the questionnaire was assessed by calculating the correlation between its total score and the total score of the AWARE questionnaire. The results of Pearson’s correlation coefficient were significant and positive, showing the good convergent validity of the AWQV2. The reliability of the instrument was examined using internal consistency and test-retest reliability methods. Cronbach’s alpha was equal to 0.72 for the AWQV2, indicating that this instrument had an acceptable internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales of this questionnaire was 0.60 to 0.72. The test-retest reliability was investigated by administering the questionnaire twice at a 2-week interval on 30 patients, and the results were compared with the correlation coefficient of 0.77. The results showed the good test-retest reliability of this questionnaire. In addition, test-retest at a 1-week interval was performed on a small number of patients.