Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale in cerebral palsy

BackgroundThe Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale (FAB) is a multi-item balance assessment test designed to measure balance in relatively higher functioning individuals. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the FAB (FAB-T) in children with cerebral palsy (CP).Research questionIs the Turkish version of the Fullerton Advance Balance Scale valid and reliable in determining balance problems in children with cerebral palsy and determining the underlying cause of this condition?MethodsForty-six children with CP participated in this study. Rasch analysis was used to investigate item adherence. Internal consistency of the FAB-T was established using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Test-retest reliability was also evaluated. In addition, to assess concurrent validity, FAB-T scores were compared with the Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS) using the Spearman correlation coefficient.ResultsThe FAB-T showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha value=0.94) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.99). The FAB and the PBS exhibited concurrent positive validity (r = 0.913; p < 0.001). All items of the FAB-T were found to fit the Rasch Model (Chi-square 16.01(df=20), p = 0.716).SignificanceThe FAB-T is a reliable and valid tool that can be used to measure balance skills and to identify the source of the problem in children with CP.     

"五习惯"医患沟通评价量表的构建及信效度研究

背景 医患沟通障碍是导致医疗纠纷发生的主要原因之一。目前，我国对医务人员医患沟通能力的评价研究较少，缺乏信效度良好的评估工具。 目的 构建"五习惯"医患沟通评价量表（5HCS），检验其信度和效度。 方法 2014年3月，采用Brislin翻译法在"四习惯"医患沟通评价体系（4HCS）的基础上，形成5HCS初稿；2014年4—6月，采用德尔菲法，使用问卷分两轮征求专家意见，根据专家意见修订条目后形成5HCS定稿；2018年3月，使用新构建的5HCS对127名住院医师的医患沟通能力进行评估，通过分析其评价数据，检验量表的内部一致性、评价者间信度、内容效度和标准关联效度。 结果 正式版5HCS包含5个维度（"尊重示善，融洽关系""采集信息，引导观点""表达共情，建立信任""风险告知，知情同意""提供诊断，协商决策"），21个条目。量表的Cronbach's α系数为0.716，各维度与量表总分的r值为0.524~0.692，各条目的内容效度指数（I-CVI）≥0.81，量表总分的评价者间信度r值为0.912，组内相关系数（ICC）=0.912，标准关联效度以中文版医患沟通技能评价量表（SEGUE）为标准，两个量表总分之间的r值为0.377（P<0.01）。 结论 5HCS具有良好的信度和效度，可将其作为我国住院医师医患沟通能力测评工具加以推广应用。     

中药饮片保质期与有效期文献计量学分析

目的：对中药保质期或有效期进行系统的调研，探讨中药饮片设定保质期或有效期的依据及其必要性，为提高中药饮片质量、保障临床用药安全提供技术支撑，为药品监管部门制定有关法规提供科学依据。方法：以国家知识基础设施数据库（CNKI）为数据来源，采用文献计量学研究方法，选用检索词为“中药材”并“有效期”“饮片”并“有效期”，“饮片”并“保质期”“中药材”并“保质期”“中药材”并“效期”和“饮片”并“效期”，利用CNKI平台工具以及Excel统计工具进行统计分析。结果：经数据库检索、筛选，获取中药材、饮片保质期或有效期或效期的相关有效文献共85篇，其中关于中药、饮片保质期的相关文献26篇，中药、饮片有效期或效期的相关文献59篇；在59篇关于中药有效期的文献中，74.58%的文献对于中药是否应该制定有效期、如何制定有效期等展开了讨论，25.42%的文献为中药有效期研究的实验性文献。结论：本文从中药材、饮片保质期与有效期的现状，质量评价指标，研究方法，饮片分类、保质期制定的必要性，及其存在的问题和建议等方面进行了梳理和归纳，为中药饮片保质期制定，提供了详实的文献依据。     

乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者症状评估量表的编制和信效度检验

目的 根据乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者的症状特征,编制适用于我国乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者的症状评估量表,并检验其信效度。方法 在文献回顾及参照现有症状评估量表的基础上编制量表初始条目池;通过2轮德尔菲专家函询,形成初始版量表;通过对11例患者的认知性访谈,对量表条目进一步修订,形成临床测试版量表。便利选取2020年7月—9月在浙江省某三级甲等肿瘤医院门诊或住院的325例乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者进行问卷调查,检验量表信效度。 结果 形成的最终版乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者症状评估量表包括33个条目,探索性因子分析提取7个公因子,累计方差贡献率为68.76%;各条目内容效度指数为0.78~1.00,量表内容效度指数为0.91;内在相关性检验结果显示,量表各维度与总量表相关系数为0.58~0.79（P<0.05）;维度间相关系数为0.26~0.52（P<0.05）;总量表Cronbach’s α系数为0.94,重测信度为0.95,折半信度为0.84。结论 编制的乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者症状评估量表具有良好的信效度,适用于相关人群的症状测评。     

复苏室患儿苏醒期探视信念和态度量表的初步构建及信效度评价

目的 构建护士对麻醉复苏室(post-anesthesia care unit,PACU)患儿苏醒期家属探视信念和态度的量表并评价其信效度。方法 通过回顾相关文献、专家咨询等方法构建护士对PACU患儿苏醒期家属探视信念和态度的量表暂定版,采用暂定版对460名PACU护理人员进行调查并检验其信效度。结果 修订的PACU患儿苏醒期家属探视信念和态度量表包含20个条目,其中信念维度3个因子,17个条目;态度维度1个因子,3个条目。总量表的Cronbach′s α系数为0.924,重测信度为0.898,内容效度为0.892。探索性因子分析提取信念维度3个因子的累积方差贡献率62.423%,各维度之间的相关系数为0.53～0.65,各维度与量表总分之间的相关系数为0.73～0.91,验证性的因子分析证实PACU患儿苏醒期家属探视信念和量表各项适配指数均达标。结论 PACU患儿苏醒期家属探视信念和态度量表有较好的信效度,可用作PACU护士对患儿苏醒期家属开放性探视信念和态度测评工具的参考。     

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the pressure injury knowledge assessment tool 2.0

AimThe aim of this study was to develop a Turkish version of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool 2.0 (PUKAT 2.0) and determine its validity and reliability.Materials and MethodsThis was a cross-cultural adaptation and validation study. The study sample included a total of 451 participants (232 nurses and 219 nursing students). The validity of the Turkish version of the PUKAT 2.0 was evaluated with linguistic validity, content validity, item validity (item difficulty, discriminating index), and construct validity (known-groups technique) analyses. The reliability of the tool was evaluated by conducting a test–retest analysis.ResultsContent validity index (CVI) for the items (Item-CVI) ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 and the CVI for the scale (Scale-CVI) was 0.95. The difficulty index for 21 items ranged from 0.10 to 0.63. Four items were found to be too difficult. Item discriminating index values ranged from 0.00 to 0.61. The overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was found to be 0.80.ConclusionThe Turkish version of the Pressure Injury Knowledge Assessment Tool 2.0 (PIKAT 2.0-Tr) is supported by acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to evaluate the knowledge of nurses and nursing students in Turkey about the prevention of PI.     

Step-count outcomes of 13 different activity trackers: Results from laboratory and free-living experiments

BackgroundMany activity trackers have been developed, but steps can still be inconsistent from one monitor to another.Research questionWhat are the differences and associations between the steps of 13 selected consumer-based and research-grade wearable devices during 1 standardized day in a metabolic chamber and 15-day free-living trials?MethodsIn total, 19 healthy adults between 21 and 50 years-old participated in this study. Participants were equipped with 12 accelerometer-based active trackers and one pedometer (Yamasa) in order to monitor the number of steps per day. The devices were worn on the waist (ActiGraph, Omron, Actimarker, Lifedorder, Withings, and Yamasa) or non-dominant wrist (Fitbit, Garmin, Misfit, EPSON, and Jawbone), or placed in a pocket (Omron CaloriScan, and TANITA). Participants performed structured activities over a 24 h period in a chamber (Standardized day), and steps were monitored in the same participants in free-living trials for 15 successive days using the same monitors (free-living days).ResultsWhen the 13 monitors were ranked by their steps, waist-worn ActiGraph was located at the center (7th) of the monitors both in the Standardized (12,252 ± 598 steps/day, mean ± SD) and free-living days (9295 ± 4027 steps/day). The correlation between the accelerometer-based devices was very high (r = 0.87–0.99). However, the steps of Yamasa was significantly lower in both trials than ActiGraph. The wrist-worn accelerometers had significantly higher steps than other devices both trials (P < 0.05). The differences between ActiGraph and Actimarker or Lifecorder was less than 100 steps/day in the Standardized day, and the differences between ActiGraph and Active Style Pro was less than 100 steps/day in the free-living days. Regression equation was also performed for inter-device compatibility.SignificanceStep obtained from the wrist-worn, waist-worn, and pocket-type activity trackers were significantly different from each other but still highly correlated in free-living conditions.     

Reliability of Modified Harris Hip Score as a tool for outcome evaluation of Total Hip Replacements in Indian population

BackgroundStandard Harris Hip Score (HHS) is a validated tool, to measure the functional status of an individual and has been traditionally used to assess the condition of a patient with hip pathologies. Harris hip score in its standard form includes a physician’s physical examination component which has a high inter-observer variability. A modified version of HHS (MHHS) was devised and brought into use, but has not been validated as an outcome measure, post total hip replacement (THR) in Indian population.Methods101 patients with 122 hips for whom THR was done, were followed up, and HHS and MHHS were recorded at a minimum followup of 6 months.ResultsThe mean MHHS was 78.97 with a standard deviation of 15.017. There was positive correlation between the two functional outcome scores with a p value of 0.001. MHHS was found to be reliable with a significant intraclass correlation coefficient (p = 0.001).ConclusionMHHS is a reliable and valid tool to measure functional outcome in patients undergoing Total Hip Replacements.     

医护人员医学叙事能力量表的编制及信效度检验

目的 开发适用于医护人员的医学叙事能力量表（Narrative Competence Scale,NCS）,并检验其信效度。方法 以叙事理论、故事理论、诺丁斯关怀理论为指导,结合文献分析和对17名叙事医学/叙事护理实践型医护人员的访谈结果,构建医护人员医学叙事能力量表的条目池。通过德尔菲法、预调查、项目分析形成初版量表,并对607名医护人员进行问卷调查,检验量表的信效度。结果 NCS包括27个条目,划分为3个维度（累积方差贡献率为65.02%）,总量表的Cronbach's α系数为0.950,折半信度为0.935,1个月后重测信度为0.717（P< 0.001）,内容效度指数为0.89,NCS与杰斐逊共情量表、人文关怀能力量表总分及各维度均呈正相关（P< 0.001）。结论 该研究形成的NCS具有良好的信效度,适用于中国医护人员医学叙事能力水平的测评。     

Determining validity of the PALite and ODFS PACE activity logger for measuring step count in healthy adults

BackgroundDetermining adherence with orthoses is important for clinicians prescribing devices. Measuring orthotic use often relies on patient recall which has poor agreement with objective measures. Measuring step count whilst wearing an orthosis could help objectively quantifying adherence. The Odstock Drop Foot Stimulator (ODFS) Pace, used in foot drop, has an integral activity logger which provides data on step count. The PALite, an accelerometer, measures step count and can be fixed to an ankle foot orthoses (AFO). Both have the potential to provide objective measures of adherence; however, their validity for this purpose has not been determined.Research questionTo determine the validity of the PALite and ODFS Pace activity logger in measuring total step count, by exploring their level of agreement.MethodsA convenience sample of sixteen healthy volunteers, aged 18–65, were recruited from Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU). Participants walked continuously for 5 min on a treadmill at three walking speeds; normal (1.3ms⁻¹), slow (0.4 ms⁻¹) and fast (1.7-2.0 ms⁻¹), wearing both the PALite and ODFS Pace. All walks were video recorded, viewed by 2 raters, and observed step count was determined by a click counter. Step count from both devices was validated against observed step count using video recording. The level of agreement between the three methods was established.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the 3 methods of measuring step count at any walking speed (normal, p = 0.913; slow, p = 0.938; fast, p = 0.566). Good levels of agreement for both devices with observed step count at all 3 walking speeds, with mean percentage differences being between −1.2 and 2.1 % (maximum upper and lower levels of agreement = 19.5 and −18.8 %) was detected.SignificanceClinicians could consider both devices to objectively measure step count with people who are prescribed foot drop orthoses, thus quantifying orthotic use.