Validity of the Diabetic Wound Assessment Learning Tool

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Teacher Pub Date : 2025-01-13 DOI:10.1111/tct.70025
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,&nbsp;Andrew D. Dueck,&nbsp;Kulamakan M. Kulasegaram,&nbsp;Ryan Brydges,&nbsp;Catharine M. Walsh,&nbsp;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> &lt; 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.

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
糖尿病伤口评估学习工具的有效性。
目的:糖尿病伤口评估学习工具(DiWALT)的发展已经被描述过。然而,缺乏对其应用于更大、更异质的参与者群体的研究。为了对DiWALT的心理测量特性进行更有力的评估,我们将其应用于更广泛的参与者群体。材料和方法:我们通过评估74名临床医生参与者在两种模拟伤口护理场景中的表现,为该工具建立了效度证据:两名评估员独立评估每位使用我们工具的参与者,共有五名评估员提供分数。我们使用概括性理论分析评估有效性证据,并使用方差分析比较三个经验水平的表现分数。结果:该工具能很好地区分新手和其他两组(p)。结论:累积的效度证据表明,我们的工具可用于评估新手临床医生在模拟病例中初始糖尿病伤口处理的能力。需要进一步的工作来澄清DiWALT在更广泛的概括范围内的表现,并检查其外推和影响推断的证据。
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
Clinical Teacher
Clinical Teacher MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
113
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.
期刊最新文献
How to … Co-Create Research With Medical Students Investigating TikTok Trends in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Comprehensive Descriptive Analysis TCT Referee Recognition 2024 Navigating Crossroads: Collaborative Strategies to Assess and Enhance the Quality of Clinical Learning Environments How to Harness Education Fellows to Optimise Clinical Placement Capacity
×
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