Omar Selim, Andrew D. Dueck, Kulamakan M. Kulasegaram, Ryan Brydges, Catharine M. Walsh, Allan Okrainec
{"title":"Validity of the Diabetic Wound Assessment Learning Tool","authors":"Omar Selim, Andrew D. Dueck, Kulamakan M. Kulasegaram, Ryan Brydges, Catharine M. Walsh, Allan Okrainec","doi":"10.1111/tct.70025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The development of the Diabetic Wound Assessment Learning Tool (DiWALT) has previously been described. However, an examination of its application to a larger, more heterogeneous group of participants is lacking. In order to allow for a more robust assessment of the psychometric properties of the DiWALT, we applied it to a broader group of participants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We built validity evidence for the tool by assessing 74 clinician participants' during two simulated wound care scenarios: Two assessors independently rated each participant using our tool, with a total of five raters providing scores. We evaluated validity evidence using generalizability theory analyses and by comparing performance scores across the three experience levels using ANOVA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The tool differentiated between novices and the other two groups well (<i>p</i> < 0.01) but not between intermediates and experts (<i>p</i> = 0.34). Our generalizability coefficient was 0.87, and our phi coefficient was 0.87.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The accumulated validity evidence suggests our tool can be used to assess novice clinicians' competence in initial diabetic wound management during simulated cases. Further work is required to clarify the DiWALT's performance in a broader universe of generalisation and to examine evidence for its extrapolation and implications inferences.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Teacher","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tct.70025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The development of the Diabetic Wound Assessment Learning Tool (DiWALT) has previously been described. However, an examination of its application to a larger, more heterogeneous group of participants is lacking. In order to allow for a more robust assessment of the psychometric properties of the DiWALT, we applied it to a broader group of participants.
Materials and Methods
We built validity evidence for the tool by assessing 74 clinician participants' during two simulated wound care scenarios: Two assessors independently rated each participant using our tool, with a total of five raters providing scores. We evaluated validity evidence using generalizability theory analyses and by comparing performance scores across the three experience levels using ANOVA.
Results
The tool differentiated between novices and the other two groups well (p < 0.01) but not between intermediates and experts (p = 0.34). Our generalizability coefficient was 0.87, and our phi coefficient was 0.87.
Conclusion
The accumulated validity evidence suggests our tool can be used to assess novice clinicians' competence in initial diabetic wound management during simulated cases. Further work is required to clarify the DiWALT's performance in a broader universe of generalisation and to examine evidence for its extrapolation and implications inferences.
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Teacher has been designed with the active, practising clinician in mind. It aims to provide a digest of current research, practice and thinking in medical education presented in a readable, stimulating and practical style. The journal includes sections for reviews of the literature relating to clinical teaching bringing authoritative views on the latest thinking about modern teaching. There are also sections on specific teaching approaches, a digest of the latest research published in Medical Education and other teaching journals, reports of initiatives and advances in thinking and practical teaching from around the world, and expert community and discussion on challenging and controversial issues in today"s clinical education.