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":"68 9","pages":"166-170"},"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
An efficient spherical fuzzy MEREC-CoCoSo approach based on novel score function and aggregation operators for group decision making. New insights into the molecular mechanisms of ROR1, ROR2, and PTK7 signaling from the proteomics and pharmacological modulation of ROR1 interactome. Distal revascularisation and the diabetic foot Glycated haemoglobin HbA1c or HbA1: expression of results Psychological aspects of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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