{"title":"德国版诊断思维量表(DTI-G)的文化适应与验证/德国诊断思维量表(DTI-G)的文化适应与文化适应","authors":"A. Schäfer, Britta Sebelin, L. Spitzer","doi":"10.2478/ijhp-2019-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Diagnostic ability is essential for expert professional practice. Several instruments have been developed to assess diagnostic skills independent of specific knowledge. One such instrument is the diagnostic thinking inventory (DTI), which is used in different settings to evaluate diagnostic performance and has shown acceptable reliability and validity. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate a German version (DTI-G). Cultural adaptation and translation were performed according to international guidelines. Internal consistency and item discrimination indexes were calculated. The factorial structure of the DTI-G, test-retest reliability and known-groups validity were tested. A total of 388 physiotherapists completed the questionnaire. The internal consistency was good for the overall score of the DTI-G (Cronbach’s a = 0.84). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a five-factor solution with 21 items that explained 55% of the total variance across items. A confirmatory principal component analysis resulted in the same five-factor structure, showing an acceptable to good overall fit of the model (CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.06). Test-retest reliability was found to be good (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC2,1 = 0.87, p < 0.001, n = 118). The difference between participants with more than 9 years of clinical experience and those with less than 9 years of clinical experience (median split) was significant (t385 = 6.00, p < 0.001), supporting known-groups validity. The results support construct validity and indicate good test-retest reliability of the DTI-G. The DTI-G can be used to measure and develop diagnostic ability of physiotherapists in clinical practice and education. Further research is necessary to validate the questionnaire for other health professions.","PeriodicalId":91706,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health professions","volume":"85 1","pages":"32 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the diagnostic thinking inventory (DTI-G) / Ein Instrument zur Erhebung diagnostischer Kompetenz: Validierung und kulturelle Adaptation des Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI-G)\",\"authors\":\"A. Schäfer, Britta Sebelin, L. Spitzer\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/ijhp-2019-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Diagnostic ability is essential for expert professional practice. Several instruments have been developed to assess diagnostic skills independent of specific knowledge. One such instrument is the diagnostic thinking inventory (DTI), which is used in different settings to evaluate diagnostic performance and has shown acceptable reliability and validity. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate a German version (DTI-G). Cultural adaptation and translation were performed according to international guidelines. Internal consistency and item discrimination indexes were calculated. The factorial structure of the DTI-G, test-retest reliability and known-groups validity were tested. A total of 388 physiotherapists completed the questionnaire. The internal consistency was good for the overall score of the DTI-G (Cronbach’s a = 0.84). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a five-factor solution with 21 items that explained 55% of the total variance across items. A confirmatory principal component analysis resulted in the same five-factor structure, showing an acceptable to good overall fit of the model (CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.06). Test-retest reliability was found to be good (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC2,1 = 0.87, p < 0.001, n = 118). The difference between participants with more than 9 years of clinical experience and those with less than 9 years of clinical experience (median split) was significant (t385 = 6.00, p < 0.001), supporting known-groups validity. The results support construct validity and indicate good test-retest reliability of the DTI-G. The DTI-G can be used to measure and develop diagnostic ability of physiotherapists in clinical practice and education. Further research is necessary to validate the questionnaire for other health professions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"32 - 45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2019-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2019-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
摘要诊断能力是专家专业实践的必要条件。已经开发了几种工具来评估独立于特定知识的诊断技能。其中一种工具是诊断思维量表(DTI),它在不同的环境中用于评估诊断性能,并显示出可接受的信度和效度。本研究的目的是翻译和验证德文版本(DTI-G)。文化适应和翻译是按照国际准则进行的。计算了内部一致性指标和项目识别指标。检验DTI-G的因子结构、重测信度和已知组效度。共有388名物理治疗师完成了问卷调查。DTI-G总分的内部一致性较好(Cronbach’s a = 0.84)。探索性因素分析产生了一个包含21个项目的五因素解决方案,解释了项目间总方差的55%。验证性主成分分析得出相同的五因子结构,表明模型的总体拟合可以接受(CFI = 0.93;Rmsea = 0.05;SRMR = 0.06)。重测信度良好(类内相关系数ICC2,1 = 0.87, p < 0.001, n = 118)。临床经验大于9年的参与者与临床经验小于9年的参与者(中位数分裂)之间的差异显著(t385 = 6.00, p < 0.001),支持已知组效度。结果支持结构效度,表明DTI-G具有良好的重测信度。DTI-G可以用来衡量和发展物理治疗师在临床实践和教育中的诊断能力。需要进一步的研究来验证其他卫生专业人员的问卷。
Cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the diagnostic thinking inventory (DTI-G) / Ein Instrument zur Erhebung diagnostischer Kompetenz: Validierung und kulturelle Adaptation des Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI-G)
Abstract Diagnostic ability is essential for expert professional practice. Several instruments have been developed to assess diagnostic skills independent of specific knowledge. One such instrument is the diagnostic thinking inventory (DTI), which is used in different settings to evaluate diagnostic performance and has shown acceptable reliability and validity. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate a German version (DTI-G). Cultural adaptation and translation were performed according to international guidelines. Internal consistency and item discrimination indexes were calculated. The factorial structure of the DTI-G, test-retest reliability and known-groups validity were tested. A total of 388 physiotherapists completed the questionnaire. The internal consistency was good for the overall score of the DTI-G (Cronbach’s a = 0.84). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a five-factor solution with 21 items that explained 55% of the total variance across items. A confirmatory principal component analysis resulted in the same five-factor structure, showing an acceptable to good overall fit of the model (CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.06). Test-retest reliability was found to be good (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC2,1 = 0.87, p < 0.001, n = 118). The difference between participants with more than 9 years of clinical experience and those with less than 9 years of clinical experience (median split) was significant (t385 = 6.00, p < 0.001), supporting known-groups validity. The results support construct validity and indicate good test-retest reliability of the DTI-G. The DTI-G can be used to measure and develop diagnostic ability of physiotherapists in clinical practice and education. Further research is necessary to validate the questionnaire for other health professions.