中国幼儿睡眠状况评估量表的编制与评价研究

目的 编制适用于我国12～35月龄幼儿的睡眠状况评估量表,评价其信度、效度和可行性,为评估中国幼儿睡眠情况提供适宜的评估工具。 方法 建立条目池,通过头脑风暴法、德尔菲法和预调查对条目进行初筛和修改。采用抽样调查方法,2019年7-11月从全国6个社区、6个乡镇和两家睡眠门诊选择12～35月龄幼儿看护人进行现场调查,共收回有效问卷551份。采用项目分析、效度分析、信度分析、可行性和验证性因子分析对量表进行评价。 结果 幼儿睡眠状况评估量表(12～35个月)包含睡眠节律、夜醒情况、入睡行为、日间嗜睡,睡眠呼吸和异态睡眠6个因子20个条目,累积解释变异量为55.55%。所有条目的内容效度指数介于0.83～1.00。量表入睡潜伏期、夜醒次数、睡眠时间3个条目与简明婴儿睡眠问卷呈正相关(r=0.41、0.69、0.42,P＜0.001)。除日间嗜睡外,社区幼儿量表总分以及其他5个因子得分均低于门诊幼儿(P＜0.05)。量表总Cronbach's α系数为0.72,两周重测信度为0.84,完成率为92.6%。验证性因子分析结果显示,量表的因子结构模型较为合理、稳定。 结论 量表具有较好的信度效度,可以区分不同幼儿的睡眠状况,有助于及早发现幼儿的睡眠问题。     

From BILAG to BLIPS--disease activity assessment in lupus past, present and future

During the past 16 years, members of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) have met on a regular basis and have been instrumental in devising a comprehensive disease activity index and, in association with others in the international rheumatological community, devising and/or testing damage and patients self-assessment indices. The history of what the BILAG group has achieved is set out here and the latest attempts at computerisation and improvements in the Disease Activity Index itself are described.     

A multi-source feedback tool for measuring a subset of Pediatrics Milestones

Background: The Pediatrics Milestones Assessment Pilot employed a new multisource feedback (MSF) instrument to assess nine Pediatrics Milestones among interns and subinterns in the inpatient context.

Objective: To report validity evidence for the MSF tool for informing milestone classification decisions.

Methods: We obtained MSF instruments by different raters per learner per rotation. We present evidence for validity based on the unified validity framework.

Results: One hundred and ninety two interns and 41 subinterns at 18 Pediatrics residency programs received a total of 1084 MSF forms from faculty (40%), senior residents (34%), nurses (22%), and other staff (4%). Variance in ratings was associated primarily with rater (32%) and learner (22%). The milestone factor structure fit data better than simpler structures. In domains except professionalism, ratings by nurses were significantly lower than those by faculty and ratings by other staff were significantly higher. Ratings were higher when the rater observed the learner for longer periods and had a positive global opinion of the learner. Ratings of interns and subinterns did not differ, except for ratings by senior residents. MSF-based scales correlated with summative milestone scores.

Conclusion: We obtain moderately reliable MSF ratings of interns and subinterns in the inpatient context to inform some milestone assignments.