Knowledge assessment tool for pediatric parenteral nutrition: A validation study.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1002/jpen.2690
Sarah E Fleet, Georgios Sideridis, Traci Wolbrink
{"title":"Knowledge assessment tool for pediatric parenteral nutrition: A validation study.","authors":"Sarah E Fleet, Georgios Sideridis, Traci Wolbrink","doi":"10.1002/jpen.2690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a high-risk medication, and its prescription and administration requires extensive training. Difficulties inherent with bedside teaching have made teaching these concepts challenging. Currently, no knowledge assessment tools with validity evidence exist to test the effectiveness of new PN teaching interventions. We sought to develop and provide validity evidence for a pediatric PN knowledge test to measure the effectiveness of future teaching interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created a multiple-choice question knowledge assessment tool that underwent content validation by PN experts and was emailed to potential participants. We evaluated the knowledge assessment tool for factorial validity, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 103 medical students (40%), residents and fellow trainees (55%), and attending physicians (5%) into the study between October 2021 and October 2022. Five of the 30 questions performed poorly based on their nonsignificant contribution to the primary aim of assessing pediatric PN knowledge. Following the exclusion of those questions, the knowledge assessment tool demonstrated an acceptable model fit, and the root mean squared error of approximation was <5%. The omega coefficient was 0.829, indicating acceptable levels of reliability, and using an analysis of variance test (ANOVA) demonstrated significant differences between groups, showing good discrimination between levels of experience (F[2, 80] = 39.002; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have developed and provided validity evidence for a multiple-choice question knowledge test that may be used by educators and programs to evaluate knowledge of pediatric PN in physicians and trainees.</p>","PeriodicalId":16668,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jpen.2690","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a high-risk medication, and its prescription and administration requires extensive training. Difficulties inherent with bedside teaching have made teaching these concepts challenging. Currently, no knowledge assessment tools with validity evidence exist to test the effectiveness of new PN teaching interventions. We sought to develop and provide validity evidence for a pediatric PN knowledge test to measure the effectiveness of future teaching interventions.

Methods: We created a multiple-choice question knowledge assessment tool that underwent content validation by PN experts and was emailed to potential participants. We evaluated the knowledge assessment tool for factorial validity, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity.

Results: We enrolled 103 medical students (40%), residents and fellow trainees (55%), and attending physicians (5%) into the study between October 2021 and October 2022. Five of the 30 questions performed poorly based on their nonsignificant contribution to the primary aim of assessing pediatric PN knowledge. Following the exclusion of those questions, the knowledge assessment tool demonstrated an acceptable model fit, and the root mean squared error of approximation was <5%. The omega coefficient was 0.829, indicating acceptable levels of reliability, and using an analysis of variance test (ANOVA) demonstrated significant differences between groups, showing good discrimination between levels of experience (F[2, 80] = 39.002; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: We have developed and provided validity evidence for a multiple-choice question knowledge test that may be used by educators and programs to evaluate knowledge of pediatric PN in physicians and trainees.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
161
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (JPEN) is the premier scientific journal of nutrition and metabolic support. It publishes original peer-reviewed studies that define the cutting edge of basic and clinical research in the field. It explores the science of optimizing the care of patients receiving enteral or IV therapies. Also included: reviews, techniques, brief reports, case reports, and abstracts.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge assessment tool for pediatric parenteral nutrition: A validation study. Association between longitudinal changes in phase angle and mortality rate in adults critically ill with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study. Association between SMOF lipid and parenteral nutrition-associated cholestasis compared with Intralipid in extremely low birth weight infants: A retrospective cohort study. Effects of parenteral nutrition supplemented with beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate on gut-associated lymphoid tissue and morphology in mice. Intravenous tigecycline with selected multichamber bag parenteral nutrition: A compatibility study
×
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