期刊文献+

Ten Rules of Foot Care—The Development of a Short Questionnaire for Patients with Diabetes

Ten Rules of Foot Care—The Development of a Short Questionnaire for Patients with Diabetes
下载PDF
导出
摘要 <strong>Objective:</strong> The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire for patients with diabetes to assess the foot self-care. <strong>Methods:</strong> A validation study was carried out in a sample of 200 patients with diabetes. Item analyses included the assessment of difficulty index, discrimination capacity and the correlation of items with the total score of the questionnaire. Factor analysis was used to test construct validity. Test-retest reliability was assessed with a sample of 31 patients. Criterion validity was determined by comparing the scores of patients with a history of foot ulcers with the scores of patients without this complication. <strong>Results:</strong> The internal consistency assessed by the Cronbach’s alpha (0.731) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.714, p = 0.001) for all sections were acceptable. Factor analysis revealed three factors: foot care, footwear and foot-damaging behavior, which explained 54.34% of the variance. All items had factor loading of greater than 0.4. Patients with diabetic neuropathy had a lower score after completing the foot care education questionnaire (Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.001). <strong>Conclusion:</strong> This questionnaire meets the reliability and validity conditions necessary for its application in our patients with diabetes. <strong>Objective:</strong> The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire for patients with diabetes to assess the foot self-care. <strong>Methods:</strong> A validation study was carried out in a sample of 200 patients with diabetes. Item analyses included the assessment of difficulty index, discrimination capacity and the correlation of items with the total score of the questionnaire. Factor analysis was used to test construct validity. Test-retest reliability was assessed with a sample of 31 patients. Criterion validity was determined by comparing the scores of patients with a history of foot ulcers with the scores of patients without this complication. <strong>Results:</strong> The internal consistency assessed by the Cronbach’s alpha (0.731) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.714, p = 0.001) for all sections were acceptable. Factor analysis revealed three factors: foot care, footwear and foot-damaging behavior, which explained 54.34% of the variance. All items had factor loading of greater than 0.4. Patients with diabetic neuropathy had a lower score after completing the foot care education questionnaire (Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.001). <strong>Conclusion:</strong> This questionnaire meets the reliability and validity conditions necessary for its application in our patients with diabetes.
作者 Ileana Antohe Alina Delia Popa Ileana Antohe;Alina Delia Popa(Nursing Department, Faculty of Medicine, “Gr. T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ia&#351;i, Romania)
机构地区 Nursing Department i
出处 《Journal of Diabetes Mellitus》 2021年第3期83-96,共14页 糖尿病(英文)
关键词 Diabetes Mellitus Foot Care Validation Study Diabetic Foot Ulcers Diabetes Mellitus Foot Care Validation Study Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献80

  • 1Wynd 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
  • 2Lindell 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
  • 3Lawshe CH.A quantitative approach to content validity[J].Personne Psychol,1975,28(4):563–575. 被引量:1
  • 4Hambleton 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
  • 5Martuza VR.Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education[M].Boston:Allyn andBacon,1977:275–293. 被引量:1
  • 6Lynn MR.Determination and quantification of content validity[J].Nursing Res,1986,35(6):382–385. 被引量:1
  • 7Davis LL.Instrument review:Getting the most from your panel ofexperts[J].Appl Nurs Res,1992,5(4):194–197. 被引量:1
  • 8Polit 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
  • 9Nora JJ.Causes old and new modes,mechanisms and models.Am Heart J,1993,125:1409 被引量:2
  • 10Hoffman JIE.Congenital heart disease:incidence and inheritance.Ped Clin North Am,1990,37:25 被引量:2

共引文献1109

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