Premium
在37个国家开展的皮肤撕脱知识评估工具 (oases) 开发及心理特性测试
Author(s) -
Van Tiggelen Hanne,
Alves Paulo,
Ayello Elizabeth,
Bååth Carina,
Baranoski Sharon,
Campbell Karen,
Dunk Ann Marie,
Gloeckner Mary,
Hevia Heidi,
Holloway Samantha,
Idensohn Patricia,
Karadağ Ayişe,
Langemo Diane,
LeBlanc Kimberly,
Ousey Karen,
Pokorná Andrea,
Romanelli Marco,
Santos Vera Lucia Conceição de Gouveia,
Smet Steven,
Williams Ann,
Woo Kevin,
Van Hecke Ann,
Verhaeghe Sofie,
Beeckman Dimitri
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.14713
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , content validity , face validity , delphi method , construct validity , reliability (semiconductor) , medicine , kappa , psychology , test (biology) , psychometrics , validity , cohen's kappa , physical therapy , clinical psychology , statistics , mathematics , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , paleontology , geometry , biology
Aim To develop and psychometrically evaluate a skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES). Design Prospective psychometric instrument validation study. Method The skin tear knowledge assessment instrument was developed based on a literature review and expert input ( N = 19). Face and content validity were assessed in a two‐round Delphi procedure by 10 international experts affiliated with the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP). The instrument was psychometrically tested in a convenience sample of 387 nurses in 37 countries (April–May 2020). Validity of the multiple‐choice test items (item difficulty, discriminating index, quality of the response alternatives), construct validity, and test–retest reliability (stability) were analysed and evaluated in light of international reference standards. Results A 20‐item instrument, covering six knowledge domains most relevant to skin tears, was designed. Content validity was established (CVI = 0.90–1.00). Item difficulty varied between 0.24 and 0.94 and the quality of the response alternatives between 0.01–0.52. The discriminating index was acceptable (0.19–0.77). Participants with a theoretically expected higher knowledge level had a significantly higher total score than participants with theoretically expected lower knowledge ( p < .001). The 1‐week test‐retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.78–0.86) for the full instrument and varied between 0.72 (95% CI = 0.64–0.79) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.81–0.89) for the domains. Cohen's Kappa coefficients of the individual items ranged between 0.21 and 0.74. Conclusion The skin tear knowledge assessment instrument is supported by acceptable psychometric properties and can be applied in nursing education, research, and practice to assess knowledge of healthcare professionals about skin tears. Impact Prevention and treatment of skin tears are a challenge for healthcare professionals. The provision of adequate care is based on profound and up‐to‐date knowledge. None of the existing instruments to assess skin tear knowledge is psychometrically tested, nor up‐to‐date. OASES can be used worldwide to identify education, practice, and research needs and priorities related to skin tears in clinical practice.