期刊文献+

行为评估量表在成人危重病人疼痛评估中的信效度研究 被引量:11

Study on reliability and validity of Behavior Assessment Scale in pain assessment of adult patients with critically ill
下载PDF
导出
摘要 [目的]对行为评估量表(The Face,Legs,Activity,Cry,Consolability Behavioral Scale,FLACC)进行信度和效度评价,探讨该量表对成人危重病人疼痛评估的应用价值。[方法]选取2015年1月—5月在某三级甲等医院重症监护病房住院的30例病人为研究对象。在非疼痛性操作前、操作后和疼痛性操作前、操作后采用FLACC量表对病人进行疼痛评估。[结果]FLACC量表评定者间信度较好[(t=1.000,P=0.326)和(t=1.044,P=0.305)];量表总体Cronbach’sα系数为0.859和0.843;非疼痛性操作前、操作后和疼痛性操作前、操作后两次重复测量的整体相关系数分别为别0.995和0.962;5个条目内容效度(I-CVI)大于0.78,K值大于0.74;该量表共提取1个公因子,累计贡献率为55.901%。非疼痛性操作后和疼痛性操作后FLACC评分分别为(3.667±1.689)分和(5.033±1.731)分。[结论]FLACC量表在成人危重病人疼痛评估中具有较好的信度和效度。 Objective:To evaluate the reliability and validity of behavior assessment scale(The Face,Legs,Activity,Cry,Consolability Behavioral Scale,FLACC)and probe into application value of the scale in the pain assessment in adult critically ill patients,Methods:A total of 30 cases of ICU patients were selected from January to May in 2015 in intensive care unit(ICU)in a third grade A cancer hospital.The FLACC scale was used for pain assessment of patients before and during non pain operation and pain operation.Results:Reliability and validity of FLACC scale were better(t=1.000,P=0.326)and(t=1.044,P=0.305);total alpha coefficients of the scale were 0.859 and 0.843;Integral correlation coefficient of twice repeated measurements before and after non pain operation and pain operation were respective 0.995 and 0.962;5items of content validity(I-CVI)was greater than 0.78,K value was greater than 0.74;common factor of the scale was extracted,the cumulative contribution rate was 55.901%.The FLACC score was respectively(3.667±1.689)and(5.033±1.731)after non-pain operation and pain operation.Conclusion:FLACC scale has better reliability and validity in the pain evaluation of adult critically ill patients.
出处 《护理研究(中旬版)》 2016年第11期3996-3999,共4页 Chinese Nursing Researsh
基金 山东省高校社科计划项目 编号:J09WJ08
关键词 行为评估量表 成人 危重病人 疼痛评估 信度 效度 Behavior Assessment Scale adult critically ill patient pain assessment reliability validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献35

  • 1Wynd CA,Schmidt B,Schaefer MA.Two quantitative approachesfor estimating content validity[J].Western J Nurs Res,2003,25(5):508–518.
  • 2Lindell MK,Brandt CJ,Whitney DJ.A revised index of interrateragreement for multi-item ratings of a single target[J].Appl PsycholMeasurem,1999,23(2):127–135.
  • 3Lawshe CH.A quantitative approach to content validity[J].Personne Psychol,1975,28(4):563–575.
  • 4Hambleton RK,Swaminathan H,Algina J,et al.Criterion-referencedtesting and measurement:Review of technical issues anddevelopments[J].Rev Educat Res,1978,48(1):11–22.
  • 5Martuza VR.Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education[M].Boston:Allyn andBacon,1977:275–293.
  • 6Lynn MR.Determination and quantification of content validity[J].Nursing Res,1986,35(6):382–385.
  • 7Davis LL.Instrument review:Getting the most from your panel ofexperts[J].Appl Nurs Res,1992,5(4):194–197.
  • 8Polit DF,Beck CT.The content validity index:are you sure youknow what’s being reported?critique and recommendations[J].Res Nurs Health,2006,29(5):489–497.
  • 9Nora JJ.Causes old and new modes,mechanisms and models.Am Heart J,1993,125:1409
  • 10Hoffman JIE.Congenital heart disease:incidence and inheritance.Ped Clin North Am,1990,37:25

共引文献1064

同被引文献132

引证文献11

二级引证文献68

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部