Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science

  • 제20권1호
  • /
  • Pages.11-19
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2383-6415(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2383-6423(eISSN)
한국기초간호학회 (Korean society of Biological Nursing Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

한국어판 욕창예방지식도구의 고전검사이론과 문항반응이론을 적용한 문항분석, 타당도와 신뢰도

Item Analysis using Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory, Validity and Reliability of the Korean version of a Pressure Ulcer Prevention Knowledge

  • 강명자 (부산대학교병원 국가암검진실) ;
  • 김명수 (부경대학교 간호학과)
  • Kang, Myung Ja (Department of National Cancer Screening, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Myoung Soo (Department of Nursing, Pukyong National University)
  • 투고 : 2017.12.05
  • 심사 : 2018.01.31
  • 발행 : 2018.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to perform items analysis using the classical test theory (CTT) and the item response theory (IRT), and to establish the validity and reliability of the Korean version of pressure ulcer prevention knowledge. Methods: The 26-item pressure ulcer prevention knowledge instrument was translated into Korean, and the item analysis of the 22 items having an adequate content validity index (CVI), was conducted. A total of 240 registered nurses in 2 university hospitals completed the questionnaire. Each item was analyzed applying CTT and IRT according to 2-parameter logistic model. Response alternatives quality, item difficulty and item discrimination were evaluated. For testing validity and reliability, Pearson correlation coefficient and Kuder Richardson-20 (KR-20) were used. Results: Scale CVI was .90 (Item-CVI range= .75-1.00). The total correct answer rate for this study population was relatively low as 52.5%. The quality of response alternatives was found to be relatively good (range= .02-.83). The item difficulty of the questions ranged form .10 to .86 according to CTT and -12.19 to 29.92 according to the IRT. This instrument had 12-low, 2-medium and 8-high item difficulty applying IRT. The values for the item discrimination ranged .04-.57 applying CTT and .00-1.47 applying IRT. And overall internal consistency (KR-20) was .62 and stability (test-retest) was .82. Conclusion: The instrument had relatively weak construct validity, item discrimination according to the IRT. Therefore, the cautious usage of a Korean version of this instrument would be recommended for discrimination because there are so many attractive response alternatives and low internal consistency.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Shin KR, Kim M, Kang Y, Jung D, Cha C, Lee E, et al. Facility and nursing factors influence on pressure ulcer occurrence among patients at risk for pressure ulcer in long term care hospitals. Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing. 2012;14(2):30-39.
  2. Jung YJ, Chung YH, Oh SJ, Lee SH, Kim YH, Kim TH, et al. Risk factors for pressure ulcer in severe trauma patients. Journal of Acute Care Surgery. 2015; 5(1):19-27. http://doi.org/10.17479/jacs.2015.5.1.19
  3. Galvao NS, Serique MA, Santos VL, Nogueira PC. Knowledge of the nursing team on pressure ulcer prevention. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem. 2017;70(2):294-300. http://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2016-0063
  4. Lee YJ, Park S. Effects of pressure ulcer classification system education program on knowledge and visual discrimination ability of pressure ulcer classification and incontinence-associated dermatitis for hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science. 2014;16(4):342-348. http://doi.org/10.7586/jkbns.2014.16.4.342
  5. Kim A. Knowledge and practice of pressure ulcer care among hospital nurses [master's thesis]. Busan: Pusan National University; 2016. p. 1-67.
  6. Beeckman D, Vanderwee K, Dmarre L, Paquay L, Van Hecke A, Defloor T. Pressure ulcer prevention: Development and psychometric validation of a knowledge assessment instrument. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2010;47(4):399-410. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.08.010
  7. Saleh MY, Al-Hussami M, Anthony D. Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment knowledge of Jordanian nurses. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2013;22(1):1-11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2013.01.003
  8. Yang NY, Moon SY. Perceived importance, educational needs, knowledge and performance concerning pressure ulcer care by clinical nurses. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2009;21(1):95-104.
  9. Park KO. A study on decubitus knowledge and decubitus nursing interventions of nurses in intensive care unit [master's thesis]. Seoul: Chung-Ang University; 2005. p. 21-24.
  10. Pieper B, Mott M. Nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention, staging, and description. Advances in Wound Care. 1995;8(3):34, 38, 40.
  11. Beitzet J, Fey J, O'brien D. Perceived need for eduction vs. actual knowledge of pressure ulcer care in a hospital nursing staff. Medsurg Nursing. 1998;7(5):293-301.
  12. Gunningberg L, Lindhom C, Carlson M, Sjoden PO. Risk, prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers- nursing staff knowledge and documentation. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2001;15(3):257-263. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-6712.2001.00034.x
  13. Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Lopez-Ortaga J. Pressure ulcer care in Spain: nurses's knowledge and clinical practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007;58(4):327-338. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2648.2007.04236.x
  14. Kang HK. Validity and reliability of the Korean version of nurses' knowledge and practice scale about the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcer [master' s thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2014. p. 14-20.
  15. Park J, Min KS. A comparison of the short-answer and the multiple-choice items in the constructive multiple-choice test. Journal of Educational Evaluation. 2009;22(2):451-469.
  16. Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Medical Education. 2004;38(9):974-979. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x
  17. Karpicke JD, Grimaldi PJ. Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review. 2012;24(3):401-418. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9202-2
  18. Roediger HL, Marsh EJ. The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2005;31(5):1155-1159. http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1155
  19. Seong TJ. Production and analysis of the theory and practice questions. 1st ed. Seoul: Hakjisa; 2004. p. 32-79.
  20. Seong TJ. Comprehension and application of the item response theory. 2nd ed. Seoul: Kyoyookbook; 2016. p. 18-166.
  21. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986;35(6):382-385. http://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
  22. Polit DF, Beck C. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 182-461.
  23. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. 1st ed. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000. p. 158-186.
  24. Simonsen BO, Johansson I, Daehlin GK, Osvik LM, Farup PG. Medication knowledge, certainty, and risk of errors in health care: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research. 2011;11:175. http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-175
  25. Lim HS, Lee YM, Ahn DS, Lee JY, Im H. Item analysis of clinical performance examination using item response theory and classical test theory. Korean Journal of Medical Education. 2007;19(3):185-195. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2007.19.3.185
  26. Liu M, Yuan HB, Chen WJ, Poon C, Hsu M, Zhang B. Translation, modification and validation of the chinese version of a knowledge assessment instrument regarding pressure ulcer prevention. Chinese Nursing Research. 2016;3(1):16-23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnre.2015.12.002
  27. Tulek Z, Polat C, Ozkan I, Theofanidis D, Togrol RE. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the pressure ulcer prevention knowledge assessment instrument. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2016;25(4):201-208. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2016.09.001
  28. Kim HJ, Jung IS. Optimal time interval for position change for ICU patients using foam mattress against pressure ulcer risk. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2012;42(5):730-737. http://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2012.42.5.730
  29. Bruttomesso D, Costa S, Dal Pos M, Crazzolara D, Realdi G, Tiengo A, et al. Educating diabetic patients about insulin use: hanges over time in certainty and correctness of knowledge. Diabetes and Metabolism. 2006;32(3):256-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1262-3636(07)70277-X
  30. Kim HJ, Huh J. SPSS 21.0 statistical analysis and explanation. 1st ed. Seoul: Top books; 2013. p. 200-217.