The reliability and validity of a brief diabetes knowledge test
The reliability and validity of a brief diabetes knowledge test
复制标题
DOI：
10.2337/diacare.21.5.706
复制
发表时间：
1998-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
16.2
通讯作者：
Davis, WK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fitzgerald, JT;Funnell, MM;Davis, WK
目的：检验简易糖尿病知识测验的信度和效度。糖尿病知识测试有两个组成部分：一个14项的一般测试和一个9项的胰岛素使用子量表。研究设计和方法-完成测试的人群。在一组患者中，患者在他们的社区接受来自各种提供者的糖尿病护理，而另一组患者接受当地卫生部门的护理。采用Cronbach系数cc计算各样本的量表信度。为了确定有效性，我们检查了患者组差异。据推测，1型糖尿病患者、受教育程度较高的患者和接受过糖尿病教育的患者的测试分数会更高。结果-一般测试和胰岛素使用子量表的系数α s表明两者都是可靠的，α大于或等于0.70。在社区样本中，1型糖尿病患者在一般测试和胰岛素使用亚量表上得分高于2型糖尿病患者。在卫生部门样本中，1型患者在胰岛素使用亚量表上的得分高于2型患者。在这两个样本中，得分都随着接受正规教育年限的增加而增加，接受糖尿病教育的患者得分高于未接受糖尿病教育的患者。结论：虽然样本在人口统计学上存在差异，但在社区和卫生部门样本中，测试的信度和效度都得到了支持。这表明该测试适用于各种环境和患者群体。
OBJECTIVE - To examine the reliability and validity of a brief diabetes knowledge test. The diabetes knowledge test has two components: a 14-item general test and a 9-item insulin-use subscale.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - To populations completed the test. In one population, patients received diabetes care in their community from a variety of providers, while the other population received care from local health departments. Cronbach's coefficient cc was used to calculate scale reliability for each sample. To determine validity, patient group differences were examined. It was hypothesized that test scores would be higher for patients with type 1 diabetes, for patients with more education, and for patients who had received diabetes education.RESULTS - The coefficient alpha s for the general test and the insulin-use subscale indicate that both are reliable, alpha greater than or equal to 0.70. In the community sample, patients 1 vith type 1 diabetes scored higher than patients with type 2 diabetes on the general test and the insulin-use subscale. In the health department sample, patients with type 1 scored higher than patients with type 2 on the insulin-use subscale. For both samples, scores increased as the years of formal education completed increased, and patients who received diabetes education scored higher than patients who did not.CONCLUSIONS - Although the samples differed demographically, the reliability and validity of the test were supported in both the community and the health department samples. This suggests that the test is appropriate for a variety of settings and patient populations.