Validity and reliability of the Pressure Sore Status Tool.

Decubitus Pub Date : 1992-11-01
B M Bates-Jensen, D L Vredevoe, M L Brecht
{"title":"Validity and reliability of the Pressure Sore Status Tool.","authors":"B M Bates-Jensen,&nbsp;D L Vredevoe,&nbsp;M L Brecht","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is not yet a universal system for describing the status of pressure sores. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of an instrument developed by the researchers for evaluation of pressure sores, the Pressure Sore Status Tool (PSST). This study was part of a larger study, which included development of a theoretical model for creation of items for the PSST. A nine-member expert judge panel established content validity of items on the instrument. Data were analyzed using a content of validity index (average index for tool = .91) and judges' comments were used to modify two items on the PSST. Two Enterostomal Therapy (ET) nurses independently used the revised tool to rate 20 pressure sores on ten adult medical-surgical patients, at two observation times. Interrater reliability was established at r = .91 for first observation and r = .92 for the second observation (p < .001). Intrarater reliability was r = .99 for rater one and r = .96 for rater two (p < .001). Future research will focus on refinement and further reliability testing of the instrument.</p>","PeriodicalId":77095,"journal":{"name":"Decubitus","volume":"5 6","pages":"20-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decubitus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is not yet a universal system for describing the status of pressure sores. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of an instrument developed by the researchers for evaluation of pressure sores, the Pressure Sore Status Tool (PSST). This study was part of a larger study, which included development of a theoretical model for creation of items for the PSST. A nine-member expert judge panel established content validity of items on the instrument. Data were analyzed using a content of validity index (average index for tool = .91) and judges' comments were used to modify two items on the PSST. Two Enterostomal Therapy (ET) nurses independently used the revised tool to rate 20 pressure sores on ten adult medical-surgical patients, at two observation times. Interrater reliability was established at r = .91 for first observation and r = .92 for the second observation (p < .001). Intrarater reliability was r = .99 for rater one and r = .96 for rater two (p < .001). Future research will focus on refinement and further reliability testing of the instrument.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
压疮状态分析工具的有效性和可靠性。
目前还没有一个通用的系统来描述压疮的状态。本研究的目的是评估研究人员开发的一种用于评估压疮的工具——压疮状态工具(PSST)的有效性和可靠性。这项研究是一项更大的研究的一部分,该研究包括为PSST创建项目的理论模型的发展。由9人组成的专家评审团确定了文书上项目的内容有效性。使用效度指数(工具平均指数= .91)的内容对数据进行分析,并使用评委的意见对PSST上的两个项目进行修改。两名肠口治疗(ET)护士独立使用修订后的工具对10名成年内科外科患者的20个压疮进行了评分,分为两次观察。第一次观察的信度为r = 0.91,第二次观察的信度为r = 0.92 (p < 0.001)。评估一的内部信度为r = 0.99,评估二的内部信度为r = 0.96 (p < 0.001)。未来的研究将集中在仪器的改进和进一步的可靠性测试上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Much ado about nothing. The effects of prolonged pressure on skin blood flow in elderly patients at risk for pressure ulcers. Comparison of quantitative methodologies to define chronic pressure ulcer measurements. Specialty support surfaces: a cost containment perspective. A comparison of Epi-Lock and saline dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1