期刊文献+

新生儿压疮风险评估量表的信效度检验 被引量:4

The reliability and validity of neonatal pressure sore risk assessment scale
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的 编制新生儿压疮风险评估量表并进行信效度检验。方法 采用便利抽样法选取2016年3月-2017年2月在本院NICU住院治疗的750例危重新生儿作为研究对象,对新生儿压疮风险评估量表的信效度进行检验。结果 新生儿压疮风险评估量表的Cronbach’sα系数为0.894,评定者间信度为0.920。评估量表中各个条目的内容效度指数为0.7~1.0,整个评估量表的内容效度指数为0.930;探索性因子分析出4个公因子累计方差贡献率为61.854%;量表的特异度为72.50%,敏感度为80.90%,阴性预测率为97.90%、阳性预测率为9.20%,ROC曲线下面积为0.834。结论 新生儿压疮风险评估量表具有良好的信效度,可用于新生儿压疮风险的评估。 Objective The reliability and validity of the risk assessment scale for neonatal pressure ulcers were compiled and tested.Methods Totally 750 critically ill neonates who were hospitalized in NICU in our hospital from March 2016 to February 2017 were chosed by convenient sampling,and the reliability and validity of the neonatal pressure ulcer risk assessment scale were tested.Results The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of neonatal pressure ulcer risk scale was 0.894,and the interrater reliability was 0.920.The content validity index of each item in the assessment scale was 0.7-1.0,and the content validity index of the whole assessment scale was 0.930;exploratory factor analysis showed that the cumulative variance contribution rate of 4 factors was 61.854%;the specificity of the scale was 72.50%,the sensitivity was 80.90%,the negative predictive rate was 97.90%,the positive predictive rate was 9.20%,and the ROC curve was under the curve.The area is 0.834.Conclusion Neonatal pressure ulcer risk assessment scale has good reliability and validity,and can be used for risk assessment of neonatal pressure sore.
作者 罗婵 姜玉娥 吕峻峰 饶芬 韦夏 黄云丽 LUO Chan;JIANG Yue;LYU Junfeng;RAO Fen;WEI Xia;HUANG Yunli(Department of Neonate,Humanitarian Hospital of Zhongshan City of Guangdong,Zhongshan 528400,China)
出处 《当代护士(上旬刊)》 2020年第1期1-3,共3页 Modern Nurse
基金 广东中山市医学科学研究项目(2016J098)。
关键词 新生儿 压疮 量表 信度 效度 Neonatal Pressure ulcer Scale Reliability Validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

二级参考文献36

  • 1Stefan G.De Hert,Philippe J.Van der Linden,Stefanie Cromheecke,Roel Meeus,Pieter W.ten Broecke,Ivo G.De Blier,Bernard A.tockman,Inez E.Rodrigus,刘功俭(译),曾因明(审).CPB的冠脉手术病人主要麻醉方法的选择影响术后ICU住院时间[J].国外医学(麻醉学与复苏分册),2004,25(4):249-252. 被引量:4
  • 2刘明,Wipada Kunaiktikul,Wilawan Senaratana,Ouyporn Tonmukayakul.中国注册护士能力架构的质性研究[J].中华护理杂志,2006,41(8):691-694. 被引量:262
  • 3Wynd CA,Schmidt B,Schaefer MA.Two quantitative approachesfor estimating content validity[J].Western J Nurs Res,2003,25(5):508–518. 被引量:1
  • 4Lindell MK,Brandt CJ,Whitney DJ.A revised index of interrateragreement for multi-item ratings of a single target[J].Appl PsycholMeasurem,1999,23(2):127–135. 被引量:1
  • 5Lawshe CH.A quantitative approach to content validity[J].Personne Psychol,1975,28(4):563–575. 被引量:1
  • 6Hambleton RK,Swaminathan H,Algina J,et al.Criterion-referencedtesting and measurement:Review of technical issues anddevelopments[J].Rev Educat Res,1978,48(1):11–22. 被引量:1
  • 7Martuza VR.Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education[M].Boston:Allyn andBacon,1977:275–293. 被引量:1
  • 8Lynn MR.Determination and quantification of content validity[J].Nursing Res,1986,35(6):382–385. 被引量:1
  • 9Davis LL.Instrument review:Getting the most from your panel ofexperts[J].Appl Nurs Res,1992,5(4):194–197. 被引量:1
  • 10Polit DF,Beck CT.The content validity index:are you sure youknow what’s being reported?critique and recommendations[J].Res Nurs Health,2006,29(5):489–497. 被引量:1

共引文献1252

同被引文献37

引证文献4

二级引证文献13

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部