Translation, modification and validation of the Chinese version of a knowledge assessment instrument regarding pressure ulcer prevention

Ming Liu , Hao-Bin Yuan , Wei-Ju Chen , Chiuyin Poon , Meihua Hsu , Bo Zhang
{"title":"Translation, modification and validation of the Chinese version of a knowledge assessment instrument regarding pressure ulcer prevention","authors":"Ming Liu ,&nbsp;Hao-Bin Yuan ,&nbsp;Wei-Ju Chen ,&nbsp;Chiuyin Poon ,&nbsp;Meihua Hsu ,&nbsp;Bo Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.cnre.2015.12.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3><strong>Objective</strong></h3><p>This study sought to translate, modify and validate an instrument developed by Beckman and colleagues to assess the knowledge of clinical nurses regarding pressure ulcers.</p></div><div><h3><strong>Methods</strong></h3><p>A methodological study design was used. The instrument was translated into Chinese and back-translated into English. A six-expert panel was invited to evaluate the content validity, and a pilot test was subsequently performed on the test-retest stability of the translated instrument. A convenience sampling method was used to recruit 240 nurses from a university teaching hospital in the Mainland of China. In total, 186 valid questionnaires were collected with a 77.5% valid return rate. The validity of the multiple-choice test items (item difficulties and discriminating indices) and internal consistency reliability were evaluated.</p></div><div><h3><strong>Results</strong></h3><p>The translated and modified instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, as follows: (1) the overall content validity index (CVI) was 0.91, (2) the overall test-retest reliability was 0.826, (3) the item difficulty indices were between 0.46 and 0.93, (4) the overall values for discrimination were 0.28–0.55, and (5) the Cronbach's <em>α</em> for the internal consistency were 0.792 for the overall instrument and 0.426–0.804 for the sub-themes.</p></div><div><h3><strong>Conclusions</strong></h3><p>This study represents the first trial to translate and modify an existing instrument that measures the knowledge of pressure ulcers in a Chinese Mainland sample. The instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and could be applied in cross-cultural nursing practices, including nursing education, research and practice, to evaluate knowledge about pressure ulcer prevention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":57172,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers of Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cnre.2015.12.002","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers of Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095771816300226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Objective

This study sought to translate, modify and validate an instrument developed by Beckman and colleagues to assess the knowledge of clinical nurses regarding pressure ulcers.

Methods

A methodological study design was used. The instrument was translated into Chinese and back-translated into English. A six-expert panel was invited to evaluate the content validity, and a pilot test was subsequently performed on the test-retest stability of the translated instrument. A convenience sampling method was used to recruit 240 nurses from a university teaching hospital in the Mainland of China. In total, 186 valid questionnaires were collected with a 77.5% valid return rate. The validity of the multiple-choice test items (item difficulties and discriminating indices) and internal consistency reliability were evaluated.

Results

The translated and modified instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, as follows: (1) the overall content validity index (CVI) was 0.91, (2) the overall test-retest reliability was 0.826, (3) the item difficulty indices were between 0.46 and 0.93, (4) the overall values for discrimination were 0.28–0.55, and (5) the Cronbach's α for the internal consistency were 0.792 for the overall instrument and 0.426–0.804 for the sub-themes.

Conclusions

This study represents the first trial to translate and modify an existing instrument that measures the knowledge of pressure ulcers in a Chinese Mainland sample. The instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and could be applied in cross-cultural nursing practices, including nursing education, research and practice, to evaluate knowledge about pressure ulcer prevention.

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
预防压疮知识评估工具中文版的翻译、修改及验证
目的:本研究旨在翻译、修改和验证Beckman及其同事开发的一种评估临床护士对压疮知识的工具。方法采用方法学研究设计。这个乐器被翻译成中文,又被反译成英文。邀请了一个六人专家小组来评估内容效度,随后对翻译后的仪器的测试-再测试稳定性进行了试点测试。采用方便抽样方法,对中国内地某大学附属医院的240名护士进行调查。共回收有效问卷186份,有效回收率为77.5%。评估了多项选择题(题难度和判别指标)的效度和内部一致性信度。结果翻译修改后的量表具有良好的心理测量特性,(1)整体内容效度指数(CVI)为0.91,(2)整体重测信度为0.826,(3)项目难度指数在0.46 ~ 0.93之间,(4)整体判别值为0.28 ~ 0.55,(5)整体量表内部一致性的Cronbach’s α为0.792,子主题的Cronbach’s α为0.426 ~ 0.804。本研究是对中国大陆样本中测量压疮知识的现有仪器进行翻译和修改的首次试验。该工具具有良好的心理测量特性,可应用于跨文化护理实践,包括护理教育、研究和实践,以评估有关压疮预防的知识。
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
353
期刊最新文献
医院新型冠状病毒感染疑似病例标准化 转运流程的制定及应用 Leadership theory in clinical practice A study on clinical nursing research trends and hotspots based on bibliometric analysis Perceived health-related stigma among patients with breast cancer Cultural barriers lead to inequitable healthcare access for aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders
×
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