Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) in preoperative anxiety in patients with local anesthesia. Methods From May to December 2020, a convenient sampling method was used to conduct an APAIS questionnaire survey on patients undergoing percutaneous renal biopsy in the Department of Nephrology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and the reliability and validity of the scale were analyzed. ResultsA total of 460 questionnaires were distributed and 444 valid questionnaires were returned, with a valid response rate of 96.5%. The Cronbach α of APAIS was 0.896, the Guttman split-half reliability was 0.811, and the content validity index was 0.891. The model fit was 12.122 for the chi-square fit index/degree of freedom, 0.916 for the goodness-of-fit index, 0.902 for the value-added fit index, 0.079 for the root mean square error of approximation, and 0.946 for the comparative fit index. The APAIS anxiety subscale score was positively correlated with the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale score (r=0.518, P<0.001). Conclusion The APAIS has good reliability and validity for evaluating the level of preoperative anxiety in patients with local anesthesia, but the application of the scale in other conditions requires further testing.
ObjectiveTo formulate the Chinese version of Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form/Caregiver Version (FoP-Q-SF/C) and examine the reliability and validity of the scale.MethodsA questionnaire survey of FoP-Q-SF/C was conducted among the caregivers of melanoma out-patients in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from June 2019 to March 2020. Convenient sampling method was adopted. The validity and reliability of the scale were analyzed.ResultsA total of 247 caregivers of melanoma out-patients were investigated by the FoP-Q-SF/C, and 101 valid questionnaires were finally collected. The Cronbach’s α of the FoP-Q-SF/C scale was 0.919, and the Guttman Split-Half coefficient was 0.906. Using exploratory factor analysis to extract 3 common factors, the cumulative explainable total variation was 73.964%. The model fit was as follows: chi-square/degree of freedom was 1.950, standardized root mean square residual was 0.067, goodness of fit index was 0.859, incremental fit index was 0.939, comparative fit index was 0.938, Tucker-Lewis index or non-normed fit index was 0.918, and the root-mean-square error of approximation was 0.097.ConclusionsThe FoP-Q-SF/C scale formulated in this study is divided into three dimensions, which has good reliability and validity, meanwhile, it is relatively simple and can be used to clinically screen melanoma caregivers’ FoP-Q-SF/C levels. However, the application of this scale in other diseases still needs further testing.
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.
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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the Quality of Working Life Scale (QWL7-32). MethodsThe QWL7-32 scale was used to survey 487 drilling workers. The presence of chronic diseases was regarded as an effector for evaluating physical health, and the result of SCL-90 measurement was regarded as an effector for evaluating psychological health. The reliability and validity of the scale were statistically analyzed. ResultsThe results of the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.713, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.920, and the Splithalf reliability coefficient was 0.942. The result of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the construct validity of scale was good, and the accumulative rate of 7 variances was 62.59%. The results of correlation analysis and t test showed that the validity of scale criterion was also good. In QWL7-32 scale, each dimension showed a good correlation with its relevant item but poor correlation with any other items. ConclusionThe QWL7-32 has a good reliability and validity.
【摘要】 目的 評價SF-36量表在測量地震傷殘人員生存質量中的信度和效度。 方法 利用自填法及訪談相結合的方式調查201例綿竹市某鎮地震傷殘人員，用重測信度和Cronbach’s α系數分析SF-36信度；因子分析方法分析效度。 結果 SF-36各領域的重測信度分別為:生理功能（PF）0.78、生理問題對功能的限制（RP）0.85、軀體疼痛（BP）0.92、健康總體評價（GH）0.82、活力（VT）0.77、社會功能（SF）0.71、心理問題對功能的限制（RE）0.79、精神健康（MH）0.66；各領域的Cronbach’s α系數分別為:PF 0.89、RP 0.75、BP 0.84、GH 0.86、VT 0.78、SF 0.72、RE0.86、MH 0.50。因子分析共提取了6個主成分，基本反映了量表的8個維度，與量表的結構構思基本相符。 結論 自填法及面對面訪談相結合的方式，將SF-36量表用于該地地震傷殘人員生存質量測定具有較好的信度和效度。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the validity and reliability of the MOS-36-item Short Form of Health Survey (SF-36) measuring the quality of life (QOL) of disabled people injured in the earthquake. Methods A total of 201 disabled people injured in the earthquake in a town of Mianzhu city were investigated via questionnaire combined with a face-to-face interview. The reliability of the SF-36 was assessed by test-retest reliability and Cronbach’s α coefficient. The validity was assessed through factor analysis. Results The test-retest reliability of the SF-36 included: physical functioning (PF) 0.78, role limitation due to physical problems (RP) 0.85, body pain (BP) 0.92, general health (GH) 0.82, vitality (VT) 0.77, social functioning (SF) 0.71, role limitation due to emotional problems (RE) 0.79, and mental health (MH) 0.66. The Cronbach’s α coefficients were as the follows: PF 0.89, RP 0.75, BP 0.84, GH 0.86, VT 0.78, SF 0.72, RE 0.86, and MH 0.50. Six principal components were extracted by factor analysis and the constructs of the obtained instrument were consistent with the conceived concept in essence. Conclusion The SF-36 survey could measure the QOL in disabled people injured in the earthquake with better reliability and validity by questionnaire combined with a face-to-face interview.
Objective We aimed to develop a self-management assessment scale for children with epilepsy and test its reliability and validity. Methods A research group was established, and the items were revised through literature review, group discussion and pre-investigation, and 280 patients with epilepsy in children were included, and the reliability and validity of the scale were tested. Results 28 items in 4 dimensions were developed to form the scale, namely, knowledge and belief of diseases and medication, compliance of medication and treatment, self-efficacy of medication and obstacles of medication. Confirmatory factor analysis extracted four common factors with characteristic roots greater than 1, and the cumulative variance explanation rate was 65.639%. The factor load of all items is > 0.5. The overall Cronbach’s alpha is 0.880, and the coefficients in seven measurement dimensions are all greater than 0.8. Conclusion The self-management assessment scale for children’s epilepsy drugs has good reliability and validity, and can provide a measuring tool for the drug management of children’s epilepsy diseases.
ObjectiveBy establishing a set of evaluation system for thoracoscopic clinical function and applicability, to evaluate and compare the advantages and disadvantages of different brands of thoracoscopes, and to provide some suggestions for the innovation and upgrade of thoracoscopes, especially for the domestic thoracoscopes.MethodsThe project coordination team initially formulated the evaluation index system for the clinical function and applicability of thoracoscope by querying literature and brainstorming. The Delphi expert consultation method was used to distribute questionnaires to the selected experts. Experts provided scores which were based on the importance of each indicator, and clarified the basis of their judgment and the familiarity with the evaluation indicators. After two rounds of screening by Delphi method, a thoracoscopic clinical function and applicability satisfactory questionnaire was formed. The appropriate sample for pre-investigation was selected, and the reliability and validity were tested. The index composition was adjusted based on the results of the test to form a final evaluation scale.ResultsThe project coordination team initially formulated 24 thoracoscope-related evaluation indicators. After two rounds of experts consultation, the item "brightness adjustment" was deleted without any additional entries. The positive coefficients of the experts in the first round and the second round were 100.0% and 80.0%, respectively. The two rounds of authoritative coefficients were 0.86 and 0.90, and the coordination coefficients were 0.272 (P<0.001) and 0.523 (P<0.001), respectively. A total of 140 questionnaires were issued in this pre-investigation. The recovery rate was 100.0% and the effective rate was 90.0%. The Cronbach's α value of the scale was 0.936, and the Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficient was 0.972. The factor analysis finally extracted 3 common factors. The total variance of the cumulative interpretation was 70.9%. The three common factors were named "operation related", "image related" and "device related".ConclusionThe evaluation index system developed in this study has good reliability and validity, and can be used as a tool to evaluate the clinical function and applicability of thoracoscopes.
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 conduct meta-analysis with the reliability of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), so as to the reliability of OSCE used in the tests for evaluating clinical capacities of medical students. MethodsArticles about evaluating clinical capacities of medical students using OSCE and using comprehensive coefficient of Cronbach's α to measure the reliability of OSCE were electronically searched in PubMed, ScienceDirect, CNKI, WanFang data and VIP from Jan. 1998 to May. 2013. Two reviewers screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using SSPS 17.0 software. ResultsThirty-four studies involving 53 coefficients of Cronbach's α were included, of which, there were 18 articles written in English involving 28 coefficients of Cronbach's α and 16 articles written in Chinese involving 25 coefficients of Cronbach's α. The results of meta-analysis showed that:the total coefficient of Cronbach's α of OSCE was 0.700 (95%CI 0.660 to 0.737). The coefficient of Cronbach's α of internationally-published literature was 0.745 (95%CI 0.696 to 0.790) and that of nationally-published literature was 0.648 (95%CI 0.584 to 0.705), with a significant difference between two groups. ConclusionCurrently, the reliability of internationally/nationally-used OSCE is 0.7, which has relatively better reliability when used in the tests for evaluating clinical capacities of medical students at home and aboard. However, the reliability of OSCE at abroad is fairly better than that at home.