痴呆症知识评估量表、痴呆症知识量表和痴呆症知识评估工具 2:哪种是衡量希腊痴呆症知识的最佳工具?

IF 2.8 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports Pub Date : 2023-12-29 DOI:10.3233/adr-230161
M. Tsatali, I. A. Angelidou, Magda Tsolaki, Birgit Teichmann
{"title":"痴呆症知识评估量表、痴呆症知识量表和痴呆症知识评估工具 2:哪种是衡量希腊痴呆症知识的最佳工具?","authors":"M. Tsatali, I. A. Angelidou, Magda Tsolaki, Birgit Teichmann","doi":"10.3233/adr-230161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Measuring dementia knowledge can be a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness of dementia awareness activities, identifying the potential benefits of dementia training programs, and breaking down common myths and stereotypes about dementia. Objective: To compare the psychometric properties of three widely used dementia knowledge tools, the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2 (DKAT2-G), the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS-G), and the Knowledge in Dementia Scale (KIDE-G) in the Greek adult population. Methods: A convenience sample of 252 participants from the general population completed the survey online. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s internal reliability, retest reliability, factor analysis, concurrent and construct validity, and floor and ceiling effects. Results: The DKAS-G had the most appropriate reliability levels (Cronbach’s alpha  =  0.845; retest reliability  =  0.921), whereas the DKAT2-G had satisfactory indexes (Cronbach’s α= 0.760; retest reliability  =  0.630). The KIDE-G showed unsatisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α= 0.419; retest reliability  =  0.619). Construct validity was confirmed for all questionnaires, showing that all of them detected participants with pre-existing knowledge of dementia. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor model for the DKAS-G and proposed the removal of 5 items. Floor and ceiling effects were found for the DKAT2-G and the KIDE-G, mainly among those who had previously participated in dementia training. Conclusions: The DKAS-G was found to have the highest levels of reliability and validity. The results prove that the DKAS-G meets the requirements for measuring dementia knowledge and evaluating dementia training programs in health professionals, caregivers, and the general population.","PeriodicalId":73594,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale, the Knowledge in Dementia Scale, and the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2: Which Is the Best Tool to Measure Dementia Knowledge in Greece?\",\"authors\":\"M. Tsatali, I. A. Angelidou, Magda Tsolaki, Birgit Teichmann\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/adr-230161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Measuring dementia knowledge can be a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness of dementia awareness activities, identifying the potential benefits of dementia training programs, and breaking down common myths and stereotypes about dementia. Objective: To compare the psychometric properties of three widely used dementia knowledge tools, the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2 (DKAT2-G), the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS-G), and the Knowledge in Dementia Scale (KIDE-G) in the Greek adult population. Methods: A convenience sample of 252 participants from the general population completed the survey online. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s internal reliability, retest reliability, factor analysis, concurrent and construct validity, and floor and ceiling effects. Results: The DKAS-G had the most appropriate reliability levels (Cronbach’s alpha  =  0.845; retest reliability  =  0.921), whereas the DKAT2-G had satisfactory indexes (Cronbach’s α= 0.760; retest reliability  =  0.630). The KIDE-G showed unsatisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α= 0.419; retest reliability  =  0.619). Construct validity was confirmed for all questionnaires, showing that all of them detected participants with pre-existing knowledge of dementia. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor model for the DKAS-G and proposed the removal of 5 items. Floor and ceiling effects were found for the DKAT2-G and the KIDE-G, mainly among those who had previously participated in dementia training. Conclusions: The DKAS-G was found to have the highest levels of reliability and validity. The results prove that the DKAS-G meets the requirements for measuring dementia knowledge and evaluating dementia training programs in health professionals, caregivers, and the general population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/adr-230161\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/adr-230161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对痴呆症知识进行测量是一项非常有价值的工具,可用于评估痴呆症认知活动的有效性、确定痴呆症培训计划的潜在益处以及打破有关痴呆症的常见神话和刻板印象。目的比较在希腊成年人群中广泛使用的三种痴呆症知识工具--痴呆症知识评估工具 2 (DKAT2-G)、痴呆症知识评估量表 (DKAS-G) 和痴呆症知识量表 (KIDE-G) 的心理测量特性。研究方法从普通人群中随机抽取 252 名参与者在线完成调查。统计分析包括克朗巴赫内部信度、重测信度、因子分析、并发效度和建构效度以及下限效应和上限效应。结果显示DKAS-G具有最合适的信度水平(Cronbach's α=0.845;重测信度=0.921),而DKAT2-G的指数令人满意(Cronbach's α=0.760;重测信度=0.630)。KIDE-G 的信度不尽人意(Cronbach's α=0.419;重测信度=0.619)。所有问卷的结构效度都得到了证实,表明所有问卷都能检测出预先了解痴呆症的参与者。确认性因素分析显示,DKAS-G 有一个四因素模型,并建议删除 5 个项目。在 DKAT2-G 和 KIDE-G 中发现了下限效应和上限效应,这主要发生在以前参加过痴呆症培训的人身上。结论:DKAS-G具有最高的信度和效度。结果证明,DKAS-G 符合测量痴呆症知识以及评估医疗专业人员、护理人员和普通人群痴呆症培训项目的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale, the Knowledge in Dementia Scale, and the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2: Which Is the Best Tool to Measure Dementia Knowledge in Greece?
Background: Measuring dementia knowledge can be a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness of dementia awareness activities, identifying the potential benefits of dementia training programs, and breaking down common myths and stereotypes about dementia. Objective: To compare the psychometric properties of three widely used dementia knowledge tools, the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2 (DKAT2-G), the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS-G), and the Knowledge in Dementia Scale (KIDE-G) in the Greek adult population. Methods: A convenience sample of 252 participants from the general population completed the survey online. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s internal reliability, retest reliability, factor analysis, concurrent and construct validity, and floor and ceiling effects. Results: The DKAS-G had the most appropriate reliability levels (Cronbach’s alpha  =  0.845; retest reliability  =  0.921), whereas the DKAT2-G had satisfactory indexes (Cronbach’s α= 0.760; retest reliability  =  0.630). The KIDE-G showed unsatisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α= 0.419; retest reliability  =  0.619). Construct validity was confirmed for all questionnaires, showing that all of them detected participants with pre-existing knowledge of dementia. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor model for the DKAS-G and proposed the removal of 5 items. Floor and ceiling effects were found for the DKAT2-G and the KIDE-G, mainly among those who had previously participated in dementia training. Conclusions: The DKAS-G was found to have the highest levels of reliability and validity. The results prove that the DKAS-G meets the requirements for measuring dementia knowledge and evaluating dementia training programs in health professionals, caregivers, and the general population.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Biomarker Assessment in Parkinson's Disease Dementia and Dementia with Lewy Bodies by the Immunomagnetic Reduction Assay and Clinical Measures. Cognitive Reserve Relationship with Physical Performance in Dementia-Free Older Adults: The MIND-China Study. Are Opioids Agitating? A Data Analysis of Baseline Data from the STAN Study. Cognitive Function After Stopping Folic Acid and DHA Intervention: An Extended Follow-Up Results from the Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment. Individualized and Biomarker-Based Prognosis of Longitudinal Cognitive Decline in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease.
×
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