Development and psychometric property testing of a skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES) in 37 countries. (10th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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
• Is Part Of: Journal of advanced nursing. Volume 77:Number 3(2021)
• Page Start: 1609
• Page End: 1623
• Publication Date: 2020-12-10
• Subjects: instrument development -- knowledge -- nursing -- psychometrics -- reliability -- skin tear -- validity; Nursing -- Periodicals; 610.7305
• DOI: 10.1111/jan.14713
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0309-2402

Abstract

Abstract: 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. 摘要: 开发并通过心理测量方法评估皮肤撕脱知识评估工具 (OASES) 。 前瞻性心理测量工具验证研究。 基于文献回顾和专家提供的资料( N=19 ), 开发了皮肤撕脱知识评估工具。国际皮肤撕脱顾问委员会(ISTAP) 的10位国际专家采用两轮德尔菲法, 评估了表面和内容效度。该工具在37个国家 (2020年4月至5月) 的387名护士的方便样本中进行了心理测量测试。根据国际参考标准, 分析和评估了多项选择测验项目 (项目难度、判别指数、响应方案质量) 、结构效度和重测信度 (稳定性) 的效度。 设计了一个20项的工具, 涵盖了与皮肤撕脱最相关的六个知识领域。建立内容效度 (CVI=0.90–1.00) 。项目难度在0.24到0.94之间不等, 响应方案质量在0.01到0.52之间。判别指数可接受 (0.19‐0.77) 。理论预期知识水平较高的参与者的总分显著高于理论预期知识水平较低的参与者 (p<0.001) 。全量表的1周重测组内相关系数 (ICC) 为0.83(95%CI=0.78‐0.86), 从0.72(95%CI=0.64‐0.79) 到0.85(95%CI=0.81‐0.89) 不等。个别项目的Cohen Kappa系数在0.21到0.74之间。 皮肤撕脱知识评估工具由可接受的心理测量属性支持, 并可应用于护理教育、研究和实践, 以评估医疗保健专业人员对皮肤撕脱的相关知识。 医疗保健专业人员面临皮肤撕脱的预防和治疗挑战。基于大量的最新知识, 应提供充分的护理。现有的评估皮肤撕脱知识的工具并未经过心理测试, 也未研发出最新版本。皮肤撕脱知识评估工具可以在世界范围内用于确定与临床实践中皮肤撕脱相关的教育、实践和研究需求和优先事项。