Design and Psychometrics of Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire

A. Mehrabbeik, R. Azizi, M. Rahmanian, N. Namiranian, Marzieh Shukohifar, Mohammadjavad Asi
{"title":"Design and Psychometrics of Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire","authors":"A. Mehrabbeik, R. Azizi, M. Rahmanian, N. Namiranian, Marzieh Shukohifar, Mohammadjavad Asi","doi":"10.5812/jme-130597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Due to the important role played by knowledge in controlling and managing diabetes in most educational interventions, the assessment of the individuals’ levels of knowledge is regarded as a key variable when planning the given interventions. Objectives: This study aimed to design and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Diabetic Knowledge Questionnaire for Iranian diabetic patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2020 to May 2021 in Yazd, to examine 400 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by adopting the simple random sampling method. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out to evaluate the validity, and 2 methods of test-retest and internal consistency were used to evaluate the reliability. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and Amos 21 software. Results: The questionnaire’s items were classified into 6 factors based on factor analysis method; that is, a total of 27 questions with the dimensions of general, hypoglycemia, complications, nutrition, physical activity, and insulin were included. Questions 1 to 24 were allocated to patients with oral therapy, and questions 25 to 27 were allocated to patients under insulin therapy. These factors altogether accounted for 78% of the total variance. The internal correlation coefficient (ICC) for the knowledge questionnaire as a whole was 0.85, which demonstrated an acceptable level of reliability. Also, Pearson correlation coefficient of reliability between test times (test-retest) was found to be 0.92. Conclusions: The instrument was a valid scale designed to assess the awareness of patients with T2DM about various aspects of the disease. However, it was suggested that further studies should be conducted to investigated the patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) as well as patients with different age groups and education levels.","PeriodicalId":30594,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/jme-130597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Due to the important role played by knowledge in controlling and managing diabetes in most educational interventions, the assessment of the individuals’ levels of knowledge is regarded as a key variable when planning the given interventions. Objectives: This study aimed to design and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Diabetic Knowledge Questionnaire for Iranian diabetic patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2020 to May 2021 in Yazd, to examine 400 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by adopting the simple random sampling method. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out to evaluate the validity, and 2 methods of test-retest and internal consistency were used to evaluate the reliability. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and Amos 21 software. Results: The questionnaire’s items were classified into 6 factors based on factor analysis method; that is, a total of 27 questions with the dimensions of general, hypoglycemia, complications, nutrition, physical activity, and insulin were included. Questions 1 to 24 were allocated to patients with oral therapy, and questions 25 to 27 were allocated to patients under insulin therapy. These factors altogether accounted for 78% of the total variance. The internal correlation coefficient (ICC) for the knowledge questionnaire as a whole was 0.85, which demonstrated an acceptable level of reliability. Also, Pearson correlation coefficient of reliability between test times (test-retest) was found to be 0.92. Conclusions: The instrument was a valid scale designed to assess the awareness of patients with T2DM about various aspects of the disease. However, it was suggested that further studies should be conducted to investigated the patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) as well as patients with different age groups and education levels.
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
糖尿病知识问卷的设计与心理测量
背景:由于知识在大多数教育干预中在控制和管理糖尿病方面发挥着重要作用,因此在计划给定干预措施时,对个人知识水平的评估被视为一个关键变量。目的:设计并评估伊朗糖尿病患者糖尿病知识问卷的心理测量特征。方法:本研究于2020年3月至2021年5月在亚兹德进行横断面研究,采用简单随机抽样方法对400例2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者进行检查。采用探索性因子分析评估效度,采用重测和内部一致性两种方法评估信度。采用SPSS 20和Amos 21软件对数据进行分析。结果:采用因子分析法将问卷项目划分为6个因子;也就是说,共有27个问题,包括一般、低血糖、并发症、营养、体育活动和胰岛素。问题1至24分配给口服治疗的患者,问题25至27分配给胰岛素治疗的患者。这些因素加起来占总方差的78%。知识问卷整体的内相关系数(ICC)为0.85,信度达到可接受水平。测试次数(test-retest)之间的信度Pearson相关系数为0.92。结论:该仪器是一种有效的量表,用于评估T2DM患者对该疾病各方面的认识。但建议对1型糖尿病(T1DM)患者以及不同年龄、不同文化程度的患者进行进一步研究。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Impact of case study-based teaching on academic enthusiasm of midwifery students toward ectopic pregnancy: A cross-sectional study Teacher as a hacker: A dramatic change in the education process Enhancing and impeding factors of problem-based learning in undergraduate medical education: A qualitative study Educational scholarship and Ph.D. curriculum of medical education in Iran: A serious critique and a proposal Investigating the improvement of nursing students’ clinical competence through the mastery learning approach compared to the traditional method in the oncology department: A mixed-methods study
×
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