Development and validation of a diabetes knowledge questionnaire

C. Eigenmann, T. Skinner, R. Colagiuri
{"title":"Development and validation of a diabetes knowledge questionnaire","authors":"C. Eigenmann, T. Skinner, R. Colagiuri","doi":"10.1002/PDI.1586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An Australian National Consensus Position on Outcomes and Indicators for Diabetes \nEducation identified knowledge and understanding as the outcomes most directly \naffected by diabetes education. A subsequent literature review failed to identify a \nvalidated, suitable questionnaire for measuring knowledge. Consequently, we aimed to \ndevelop a minimum diabetes knowledge questionnaire (DKQ) suitable for people with \nboth type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Content validity was established through literature review, Delphi survey of 52 \nopinion leaders and a workshop of Australian Diabetes Educators (n ≥300). The resulting \ninstrument was tested for internal consistency on 129 and for reliability on 57 people with \ntype 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The final questionnaire contains: 12 multiple choice questions common to type 1 and \ntype 2 diabetes, e.g. normal blood glucose levels, complications, diet, exercise, selfmonitoring \nof blood glucose, annual check-ups, support services, and sick-days; two \nquestions for people on oral medication/insulin only; and one question (sick-days) for \npeople with type 1 diabetes only. For the first 12 questions, the internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α=0.73); \nwith the additional item for type 1 diabetes, the internal consistency was slightly better \n(α=0.79) as it was with the additional items for people on medication/insulin (α=0.76). No \nparticular item seemed to adversely affect the overall consistency of the questionnaire. Comparing test-retest pilots, total scores showed good reliability with no evidence of \nchange over time (t=1.73; df=56; p \n \nThe DKQ is now ready to use for evaluating knowledge outcomes of diabetes \neducation.","PeriodicalId":92116,"journal":{"name":"Practical diabetes international : the journal for diabetes care teams worldwide","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/PDI.1586","citationCount":"58","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical diabetes international : the journal for diabetes care teams worldwide","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/PDI.1586","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 58

Abstract

An Australian National Consensus Position on Outcomes and Indicators for Diabetes Education identified knowledge and understanding as the outcomes most directly affected by diabetes education. A subsequent literature review failed to identify a validated, suitable questionnaire for measuring knowledge. Consequently, we aimed to develop a minimum diabetes knowledge questionnaire (DKQ) suitable for people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Content validity was established through literature review, Delphi survey of 52 opinion leaders and a workshop of Australian Diabetes Educators (n ≥300). The resulting instrument was tested for internal consistency on 129 and for reliability on 57 people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The final questionnaire contains: 12 multiple choice questions common to type 1 and type 2 diabetes, e.g. normal blood glucose levels, complications, diet, exercise, selfmonitoring of blood glucose, annual check-ups, support services, and sick-days; two questions for people on oral medication/insulin only; and one question (sick-days) for people with type 1 diabetes only. For the first 12 questions, the internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α=0.73); with the additional item for type 1 diabetes, the internal consistency was slightly better (α=0.79) as it was with the additional items for people on medication/insulin (α=0.76). No particular item seemed to adversely affect the overall consistency of the questionnaire. Comparing test-retest pilots, total scores showed good reliability with no evidence of change over time (t=1.73; df=56; p The DKQ is now ready to use for evaluating knowledge outcomes of diabetes education.
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
糖尿病知识问卷的开发与验证
一项关于糖尿病教育结果和指标的澳大利亚全国共识认定,知识和理解是受糖尿病教育最直接影响的结果。随后的文献综述未能确定一个有效的,合适的问卷来测量知识。因此,我们的目标是开发适合1型和2型糖尿病患者的最低糖尿病知识问卷(DKQ)。通过文献回顾、对52位意见领袖的德尔菲调查和澳大利亚糖尿病教育者研讨会(≥300人)建立内容效度。研究人员分别对129名1型和2型糖尿病患者和57名1型和2型糖尿病患者进行了内部一致性和可靠性测试。最终问卷包含:12个1型和2型糖尿病常见的选择题,如正常血糖水平、并发症、饮食、运动、自我血糖监测、年度检查、支持服务和病假;只服用口服药物/胰岛素的人有两个问题;还有一个问题(请病假)只针对1型糖尿病患者。前12个问题的内部一致性较好(Cronbach’s α=0.73);对于1型糖尿病患者的附加项目,内部一致性略好(α=0.79),与服用药物/胰岛素的人的附加项目(α=0.76)相同。似乎没有特定的项目对问卷的整体一致性产生不利影响。比较复试飞行员,总得分显示出良好的信度,没有随时间变化的证据(t=1.73;df = 56;p DKQ现在可以用于评估糖尿病教育的知识成果。
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
Distal revascularisation and the diabetic foot Glycated haemoglobin HbA1c or HbA1: expression of results Psychological aspects of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Treatment of hypoglycaemia by general practitioners Delivering diabetes care: all together now?
×
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