ObjectiveTo develop a patient satisfaction evaluation scale for day surgery and test its reliability and validity, so as to provide a scientific and effective tool for day surgery patient satisfaction assessment.MethodsThe literature review method was used to form an entry pool, and the initial version of the scale was formed in conjunction with the expert review method. And then a preliminary survey was conducted to obtain the tentative version of the scale. Finally, 290 day surgery patients discharged between June 15th and July 15th, 2019 were selected to accomplish a survey to check the reliability and validity of the scale.ResultsFinally, a day surgery patient satisfaction evaluation scale was formed, containing 3 stages (pre-hospital, hospitalization, and postdischarge follow-up), 3 dimensions (medical staff evaluation, medical service evaluation, and environment and process evaluation), and 40 items. After the formal survey, the overall Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.980, the Spearman-Brown coefficient was 0.933, the Guttman’s half-coefficient was 0.932, and the content validity was 0.87-1.00.ConclusionThe day surgery patient satisfaction evaluation scale was proven good reliability and validity, which can be used as a measurement tool for day surgery patients and applied to clinical practice.
Objective To develop an evaluation tool for the screening of high risk population for oral complications in critically ill patients, which can be performed accurately and scientifically. Methods Basing on the related foreign oral assessment scale, combined with the method of brainstorming, expert consultation, method of clinical status and so on, the item pool of the assessment scale was determined. Five nursing experts and two oral experts assessed the content validity and 50 ICU nurses were tested. Then, the screening accuracy of the assessment scale was proved by application in 100 critically ill patients selected randomly. Results The Cronbach’s a coefficient of final version of the High Risk Assessment Scale for Oral Complications in Critically Ill Patients (including seven parts contents of oral health assessment and oral pH value test) was 0.815, the content validity index (Sr-CVI/Ave) was 0.932. The results of 50 nurses to the 91.2% assessment items of the assessment scale were very important and important. For screening related indicators of oral complications in high-risk patients, the sensitivity of the assessment scale was 97.53%, the specificity was 94.11%, the positive predictive value was 98.75%, the negative predictive value was 88.89%, and the crude agreement was 95%. Conclusion There are good reliability, validity and a high accuracy of screening test in the High Risk Assessment Scale for Oral Complications in Critically Ill Patients. It can be used for screening patients at high risk for oral complications in critically ill patients, and help clinical nurses to complete the oral health status of the critically ill patients quickly.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of Guideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST). MethodsWith the guideline for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in China (2020 edition) as the target guideline, health care providers and patients from different hospitals across the country were investigated by questionnaire using A-GIST. Spearman-Brown coefficient and Cronbach's α coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability, while the structural validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity were investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation. ResultsThe internal consistency reliability and split half reliability coefficients of the whole tool and each dimension ranged from 0.650 to 0.986. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) of content validity was 0.846. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that, the χ2/df of two sections of the tool were 8.695 and 6.123, respectively. The root mean square residual (RMR), the standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were under or almost under the threshold. Besides, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of them were 0.901 and 0.822, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) were 0.836 and 0.787, and the parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) were 0.545 and 0.788, respectively. ConclusionGuideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST) was proved to be valid and reliable, and it shows that it is necessary to optimize the items under the dimensions of maintenance and evaluation of diagnosis and treatment effect in the future.
ObjectivesTo compare and analyze existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments, and to provide suggestions on how to choose the most appropriate instrument.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and analyzed studies in terms of items, design methods, scopes and characteristics.ResultsTwelve original checklists with good reliability and validity were found. The first quality assessment method was designed in 1987 and the latest one was published in 2013. The number of checklist items ranged from 11 to 61.ConclusionThere is no consolidated method for assessing the quality of pharmaceutical economics evaluations. Evaluators can choose appropriate evaluation tools according to the purpose, type and operability of evaluation.
Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of IBS-QOL scale in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. Methods IBS-QOL scale was applied to survey the quality of life of 123 IBS patients. The split-half and internal consistency method were used to evaluate the reliability, and with the construct method to evaluate the validity. Results The split-half reliability was 0.86. Cronbach’s α-coefficient of all domains was between 0.71 and 0.89 except body image and food avoidance; In the correlation analysis, the correlations between items and its subscale structure were above 0.60 (except interference with activity), but there were no correlations between items and other subscale structure. Eight components from factorial analysis were in accordance with theoretical structure.The cumulative contribution rate was 72.7%. Conclusions The reliability and validity of IBS-QOL scale are acceptable. It might be useful for us to assess the QOL of IBS patients in China.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the Quality of Working Life Scale (QWL7-32). MethodsThe QWL7-32 scale was used to survey 487 drilling workers. The presence of chronic diseases was regarded as an effector for evaluating physical health, and the result of SCL-90 measurement was regarded as an effector for evaluating psychological health. The reliability and validity of the scale were statistically analyzed. ResultsThe results of the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.713, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.920, and the Splithalf reliability coefficient was 0.942. The result of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the construct validity of scale was good, and the accumulative rate of 7 variances was 62.59%. The results of correlation analysis and t test showed that the validity of scale criterion was also good. In QWL7-32 scale, each dimension showed a good correlation with its relevant item but poor correlation with any other items. ConclusionThe QWL7-32 has a good reliability and validity.
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) measure attribute studies refer to studies conducted by investigators to validate the measurement attributes of PROM. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN), an international consensus standard for the selection of health measurement instruments, divides this attribute into three aspects: reliability, validity and responsiveness, and adds interpretability as an additional important feature for evaluating PROM. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the verification methods and principles of the three major measurement attributes in the COSMIN consensus, as well as the significance and direction of interpretability evaluation, and to provide international methodological experience and reference for the development of high-quality PROM psychometric attribute verification in China.
ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applicability evaluation tool, a preliminary revised tool, by using it to appraise specific clinical guidelines.MethodsMedical staffs were sampled from relevant departments in domestic medical institutions to use tool to evaluate the two guidelines. Spearman-Brown coefficient of odd-even split-half method and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability. The convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlation analysis and correlation coefficient comparison hypothesis test, and the structural validity was investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation.ResultsThe split-half reliability of the evaluation tool was 0.86, and the Cronbach's coefficient of the whole tool and each dimension were greater than 0.7 for two guidelines. The success rates of tool convergent and discriminant validity calibration were 100%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ2 and df were 3.38 and 2.46, the comparative fit index (CFI) were 0.872 and 0.974, the goodness of fit index (GFI) were 0.954 and 0.983, and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were 0.846 and 0.959 for two guidelines respectively. Both standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. Both P values of RMSEA hypothesis test were greater than 0.05.ConclusionsThe evaluation scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the applicability of CPGs, which should be further evaluated in practical applications in the future.
The COSMIN-RoB checklist includes three sections with a total of 10 boxes, which is used to evaluate risk of bias of studies on content validity, internal structure, and other measurement properties. COSMIN classifies reliability, measurement error, criteria validity, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness as other measurement properties, which primarily focus on the quality of the (sub)scale as a whole, rather than on the item level. Among the five measurement properties, reliability, measurement error and criteria validity are the most widely used in the studies. Therefore, this paper aims to interpret COSMIN-RoB checklist with examples to guide researchers to evaluate the risk of bias of the studies on reliability, measurement error and criteria validity of PROMs.
Objective To develop a behavioral assessment scale for medication management plans in women of childbearing age with epilepsy and to test its reliability and validity. Methods Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, a pool of questionnaire items was initially drafted through literature review and focus group discussions. A two-round Delphi expert consultation was conducted with 15 experts to form a test version of the behavioral assessment scale for medication management plans in women of childbearing age with epilepsy (including 27 items and 5 dimensions). Convenience sampling was used to conduct surveys among women of childbearing age with epilepsy in some tertiary hospitals in Chuxiong, Shenzhen and Wuhan from February to May 2024 (the first time) and from June to October 2024 (the second time). ResultsThe effective recovery rates of the two rounds of questionnaires were 95.5% and 94.6%, respectively. The final scale included 24 items and 5 dimensions, with good reliability and validity: the content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.934, Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.876, split-half reliability was 0.819, and test-retest reliability was 0.901; exploratory factor analysis extracted 5 factors (cumulative variance explained rate 73.97%, item load 0.42~0.85), and confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model had good fit (χ2/df=1.849, RMSEA=0.075, CFI, GFI, AGFI, IFI, TLI all>0.85). Conclusion The scale meets the reliability and validity standards and can be used to assess the medication management plans and behaviors of women of childbearing age with epilepsy.