A reliable and valid method for evaluating cardiopulmonary resuscitation training outcomes
A reliable and valid method for evaluating cardiopulmonary resuscitation training outcomes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0300-9572(96)00967-7
复制
发表时间：
1996-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Kaye, W
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brennan, RT;Braslow, A;Kaye, W
为了比较不同训练方法后CPR表现的质量，训练结果评估必须提供有意义的数据，并以可靠的方式进行。很少有研究提供其评估程序的细节，更少的研究报告评估性能的措施是否可靠（在多个试验中产生一致的信息）或有效（测量预期的结果）。很少有研究试图复制其他作者使用的评估方法。传统的技能表尚未显示出可靠有效地评估按压和通气。当使用仪器化人体模型时，可以通过消除按压和通气的定性评估来简化技能检查表。使用样本的171名心肺复苏术学员由训练有素的评估人员进行评估，我们提供了两个评估人员之间的协议的细节，并使用一个既定的统计（克朗巴赫的CR），以评估14项简化心肺复苏检查表的可靠性。两名评分员之间的一致性水平很高（皮尔逊积差相关= 0.87），Cronbach或（0.89）获得的可靠性估计也很高。作为评估CPR表现的CPR检查表有效性的标准相关证据，估计了与CPR的五点主观总体评分的相关性（斯皮尔曼相关性= 0.92）。我们敦促对心肺复苏术培训结果进行标准化报告，以实现各项研究的可比性。
In order to compare the quality of CPR performance after various training methods, training outcome assessment must provide meaningful data and do it in a way that is reliable. Few studies have provided details of their assessment procedures, and even fewer report on whether the measures to evaluate performance are reliable (yielding information consistently over multiple trials), or valid (measuring the outcome intended). Few studies have attempted to replicate assessment methods used by other authors. Conventional skill sheets have not been shown to assess compressions and ventilations reliably and validly, When using an instrumented manikin, skill checklists can be simplified by eliminating qualitative assessment of compressions and ventilations. Using a sample of 171 CPR trainees rated by trained evaluators, we provide details of agreement between two evaluators and use an established statistic (Cronbach's cr) to assess the reliability of a 14-item simplified CPR checklist. The level of agreement between two raters was high (Pearson product-moment correlation = 0.87) as was the reliability estimate obtained by Cronbach's or (0.89). As criterion-related evidence of the validity of the CPR checklist to assess CPR performance, a correlation with a five-point subjective overall rating of CPR was estimated (Spearman correlation = 0.92). We urge standardized reporting of CPR training outcomes in order to achieve comparability across studies.