Reliability and Validity of a Carbohydrate-Counting Knowledge Questionnaire for Young Australians With Type 1 Diabetes |
| |
| Authors: | Jacqueline Beal Shelley Farrent Lavinia Farndale Lucinda Bell |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia;2. Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia;1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA;2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA;3. Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA;4. Good Measures, Boston, MA;5. The Greater Boston Food Bank, Boston, MA;1. School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN;2. School of Nursing, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA;1. Department of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY;2. Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY;1. Department of Nutrition, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN;2. Department of Public Health, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveTo test the reliability and validity of a carbohydrate-counting knowledge questionnaire in young Australians with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).MethodsChildren or young adults (<20 years) with T1DM, or their parents, completed the 72-item Australian PedCarbQuiz (AusPCQ), adapted from the American PedCarbQuiz, and an expert assessment of carbohydrate-counting knowledge. Responses were scored and summed (0–72, higher scores = greater knowledge). Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach α, and relative validity using Spearman correlations (with HbA1c) and Bland-Altman analysis (with the expert assessment).ResultsAustralian PedCarbQuiz reliability (n = 44, mean score = 59.7 ± 5.6) was acceptable (α = 0.83). There was a lack of agreement (mean bias = 10.7, P = 0.008) and significant proportional bias between AusPCQ scores and expert assessments (β = ?0.73 [95% confidence interval, ?1.82 to ?0.79]; P < 0.001).Conclusions and ImplicationsThe AusPCQ was shown to be reliable but not valid in a small sample. Testing in a larger sample is warranted. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
