ObjectiveTo translate the King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (K-BILD) to Chinese, so as to provide an well reliability and validity assessment instrument for health status of patients with interstitial lung disease.MethodsBrislin’s transition model, six expert’s panel and pre-survey were used for initial Chinese version of K-BILD. Items analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability were used for validity and reliability test with 122 respondents.ResultsTen-item Chinese version of K-BILD were proved to have great psychometric qualities, two factors were extracted by EFA, which could explain 63.35% of the total variance. Furthermore, the CFA demonstrates the fit indices of two-factors mode: χ2/df=0.797, RMSEA=0.000, NFI=0.848, IFI=1.048, CFI=1.000, TLI=1.071. Cronbach’s α and Guttman Split-half were 0.893 and 0.861, respectively. Besides, the test-retest reliability of the scale was 0.805.ConclusionThe Chinese version of K-BILD scale has good validity and reliability, which is applicable for health status assessment in patient with interstitial lung disease.
Objective To primarily test the reliability and validity of the Kashin-Beck Disease (KBD) affected big joints function assessing system for adult Tibetans in Rangtang County. Method From June to July 2009, 142 KBD patients were investigated with the function assessing system in Rangtang County of Ngawa. Cronbach’s α coefficient was calculated to estimate internal consistency reliability. Pearson’s r for the correlation of the items with the total score of the scale was computed to test the internal validity. Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation analysis was conducted to explore construct validity. Result Both the response and complete rates of the scale were 100%. The time for completing the scale was 7.8±3.4 minutes. Cronbach’s α was 0.857, which revealed satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Pearson correlation analysis revealed significant correlation between the scores of each item and the total score of the scale (Plt;0.05). Pearson’s r value of each item was more than 0.4, only except the items of “sitting with legs crossed” and “standing at attention”. The principal factor analysis extracted three latent factors explaining 68.1% of the variation together. The latent factors weights of the items were over 0.4 except the items of “standing at attention”, "taking food” and “wiping after defecation”. Conclusion The reliability and validity of KBD affected big joints function assessing system for adult Tibetans in Rangtang County was good in this primary test, the function assessing system has to be widely applied and further assessed among Tibetans suffered with KBD, in order to provide a standard evaluation criterion in KBD integrate control.
Objective To develop an evaluation tool for the screening of high risk population for oral complications in critically ill patients, which can be performed accurately and scientifically. Methods Basing on the related foreign oral assessment scale, combined with the method of brainstorming, expert consultation, method of clinical status and so on, the item pool of the assessment scale was determined. Five nursing experts and two oral experts assessed the content validity and 50 ICU nurses were tested. Then, the screening accuracy of the assessment scale was proved by application in 100 critically ill patients selected randomly. Results The Cronbach’s a coefficient of final version of the High Risk Assessment Scale for Oral Complications in Critically Ill Patients (including seven parts contents of oral health assessment and oral pH value test) was 0.815, the content validity index (Sr-CVI/Ave) was 0.932. The results of 50 nurses to the 91.2% assessment items of the assessment scale were very important and important. For screening related indicators of oral complications in high-risk patients, the sensitivity of the assessment scale was 97.53%, the specificity was 94.11%, the positive predictive value was 98.75%, the negative predictive value was 88.89%, and the crude agreement was 95%. Conclusion There are good reliability, validity and a high accuracy of screening test in the High Risk Assessment Scale for Oral Complications in Critically Ill Patients. It can be used for screening patients at high risk for oral complications in critically ill patients, and help clinical nurses to complete the oral health status of the critically ill patients quickly.
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to translate the U-CEP scale into Chinese, and evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the U-CEP, in order to provide a measurement and evaluation tool for clinical epidemiology education and research. MethodsThe U-CEP scale was translated and adapted using the Brislin translation model. A nationwide survey of clinicians was conducted using the Chinese version of the U-CEP. Item analysis, reliability analysis, and validity analysis were performed using SPSS 26.0 software. ResultsThe discriminant validity analysis showed that except for item 4, the critical value (CR) of the other twenty-four items differed significantly between high and low groups (P<0.01), with CR values ranging from 2.902 to 14.609. The ITCs of the 25 items were all positive, with 5 items having an ITC<0.15(20%), 2 items having ITC≥0.15~0.20 (8%), 6 items having ITC≥0.20~0.40 (24%) and 12 items having ITC≥0.40 (48%). In terms of reliability, the overall Cronbach’s α coefficient of the Chinese version of the U-CEP was 0.80, with Cronbach’s α coefficient ranging from 0.752 to 0.805 when deleting each item one by one. The test-retest reliability was 0.848 (P<0.001). The alternative-form reliability was 0.838 (P<0.001). In terms of validity, expert analysis showed that the content validity of the Chinese version of the U-CEP was good. The construct validity analysis showed that the cumulative contribution rate of the 25 items was 57.50%. No respondent scored full marks or zero marks, indicating that no ceiling or floor effects were found. There were statistically significant differences in the total scores among clinicians with different educational backgrounds or with or without systematic learning of relevant knowledge (P<0.05). ConclusionThe Chinese version of the U-CEP has good reliability and validity, as well as good cultural adaptability. It can effectively assess a physician's knowledge of clinical epidemiology.
ObjectiveTo explore the validity period of oral sterilizing instruments in different packages inside the bio-safety cabinet. MethodsInside the bio-safety cabinet, we brought the autoclaved dental gadgets packed in glassware and paper-plastic into microbial sampling cultivation experiment, and made observation of the bacteria growth at the 4th, 8th, 24th hour after sterilizing, with the sampling of once per 24 hours, lasting 10 days. Samples taken from the gadgets in paper-plastic each time when samples were taken from the gadgets in glassware were as the control. ResultsUnder the condition that the bio-safety cabinet was not contaminated, no colony grew in neither group in 144 hours; 168 hours later, the cultivation results indicated that colonies started to grow（P<0.05）. ConclusionUnder the condition that the bio-safety cabinet is pollution-free, the validity period of gadgets in glassware packaging for dental clinic practices is far longer than the 4-hour limit after the sterilized packages are opened, as is stipulated in the "Operating Specifications for Sterilization Technology on Dental Instruments of Medical Institutions".
ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applicability evaluation tool, a preliminary revised tool, by using it to appraise specific clinical guidelines.MethodsMedical staffs were sampled from relevant departments in domestic medical institutions to use tool to evaluate the two guidelines. Spearman-Brown coefficient of odd-even split-half method and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability. The convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlation analysis and correlation coefficient comparison hypothesis test, and the structural validity was investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation.ResultsThe split-half reliability of the evaluation tool was 0.86, and the Cronbach's coefficient of the whole tool and each dimension were greater than 0.7 for two guidelines. The success rates of tool convergent and discriminant validity calibration were 100%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ2 and df were 3.38 and 2.46, the comparative fit index (CFI) were 0.872 and 0.974, the goodness of fit index (GFI) were 0.954 and 0.983, and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were 0.846 and 0.959 for two guidelines respectively. Both standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. Both P values of RMSEA hypothesis test were greater than 0.05.ConclusionsThe evaluation scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the applicability of CPGs, which should be further evaluated in practical applications in the future.
ObjectiveTo compare and evaluate the discrimination, validity, and reliability of different data envelopment analysis (DEA) models for measuring the effectiveness of models by selecting different input and output indicators of the model.MethodsData from health statistical reports and pilot program of diagnosis-related groups of tertiary hospitals in Hubei Province from 2017 to 2018 were used to analyze the discrimination, content and structure validity, and reliability of the models. Six DEA models were established by enriching the details of input and output on the basis of the input and output indicators of the conventional DEA model of hospitals.ResultsFrom the view of discrimination, the results of all models were left-skewed, the cost-efficiency model had the lowest left-skewed degree (skewness coefficient: -0.14) and was the flattest (kurtosis coefficient: -1.02). From the view of structure validity, the results of the cost-efficiency model were positively correlated with total weights, outpatient visits, and inpatient visits (r=0.328, 0.329, 0.315; P<0.05). From the perspective of content validity, the interpretation of model was more consistent with theory of production after revision of input and output indicators. From the view of reliability, the cost efficiency model had the largest correlation coefficient between the data of 2017 and 2018 (r=0.880, P<0.05).ConclusionsAfter refining the input and output indicators of the DEA model, the discrimination, validity, and reliability of the model are higher, and the results are more reasonable. Using indicators such as discrimination, validity, and reliability can measure the effectiveness of the DEA model, and then optimize the model by selecting different input and output indicators.
ObjectiveTo develop a survey questionnaire on preferences and values regarding perineal injury prevention measures during pregnancy and conduct reliability and validity tests. MethodsCombining literature reviews, qualitative interviews, and expert consultations, we summarized key elements of perineal injury prevention during pregnancy and synthesized the best evidence. Through multiple discussions within the core working group, a survey questionnaire on preferences and values regarding perineal injury prevention measures during pregnancy was formulated. Using convenience sampling, pregnant women were recruited, and a pre-survey was conducted using the questionnaire. Pre-survey results were analyzed using item analysis and reliability and validity testing methods to validate and refine the questionnaire. ResultsThe questionnaire was compiled based on the theory of evidence-based decision-making. The initial version of the questionnaire was developed by combining systematic evaluation, network meta-analysis, and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire was modified and improved through expert consultation, group discussion, and pre-investigation, which ensured that the questionnaire had good reliability, validity, and practicability. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.87, the split-half reliability was 0.71, and the content validity index was 0.97 of the survey questionnaire. ConclusionThe present version of the perineal injury preventive measures preference and values questionnaire has good reliability, validity, and practicability. It can serve as a valuable tool for investigating preferences and values related to perineal injury prevention during pregnancy.
ObjectiveTo compare the performance of 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) and World Health Organization quality of life-bref (WHOQOL-Bref) in assessing quality of life (QOL) in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). MethodsThe WHOQOL-Bref questionnaire and the SF-36 questionnaire were administered to patients with tuberculosis undergoing treatment from July to September 2013. The statistical methods of reliability analysis, factor analysis and the Pearson correlation coefficient analysis were used. ResultsIt showed that the WHOQOL-Bref and the SF-36 both had good reliability (Cronbach α=0.863 and 0.920, respectively). Constructive validity of the two instruments were checked by factor analysis and the Pearson correlation coefficient analysis, which indicated that both the two instruments had good validity. Among scales measuring similar concepts, many subscales of the SF-36 and the four domains of the WHOQOL-Bref unexpectedly had a fair correlation with one another. For example, the physical QOL, psychological QOL, and social relation QOL domains of the WHOQOL-Bref and physical functioning, mental health, and social functioning of the SF-36 were 0.482, 0.745, and 0.572, respectively. ConclusionThe WHOQOL-Bref and the SF-36 have an approximately equivalent practicability in assessing the quality of life in patients with TB.
ObjectivesTo compare and analyze existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments, and to provide suggestions on how to choose the most appropriate instrument.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and analyzed studies in terms of items, design methods, scopes and characteristics.ResultsTwelve original checklists with good reliability and validity were found. The first quality assessment method was designed in 1987 and the latest one was published in 2013. The number of checklist items ranged from 11 to 61.ConclusionThere is no consolidated method for assessing the quality of pharmaceutical economics evaluations. Evaluators can choose appropriate evaluation tools according to the purpose, type and operability of evaluation.