期刊文献+

类风湿关节炎患者疼痛评估量表的汉化与信效度检验 被引量:10

Reliability and validity of Chinese version of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的引入并汉化类风湿关节炎患者疼痛评估量表(Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale,RAPS),并检验其信效度。方法2020年6月—10月,按照Brislin翻译模式进行翻译、回译、检译,进行文化调试,形成中文版RAPS量表。成立专家委员会检验其内容效度,对上海市某三级甲等医院的236例患者进行调查,测定量表信度。结果中文版RAPS共24个条目,各维度Cronbach’sα系数为0.881~0.954,总量表Cronbach’sα系数为0.969。内容效度指数为0.97,各条目均高于0.80,共析出3个公因子,分别为生理维度、感觉维度、情感认知维度,累计方差贡献率为73.582%。结论中文版的RAPS具有较好的信效度,适合中国文化背景下类风湿关节炎患者疼痛水平的评估与测量。 Objective To translate the Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale(RAPS)into Chinese and to evaluate its reliability and validity.Methods The Chinese version of RAPS was translated,back translated and modified for cultural adaptation according to Brislin translation model.After the content validity was tested by an expert committee,a convenience sample of 236 rheumatoid arthritis patients in a tertiary hospital in Shanghai was investigated using the Chinese version of RAPS to test the reliability and validity of the scale.Results The Chinese version of RAPS includes 24 items,and Cronbach’sαwas 0.969.Cronbach’sαcoefficient of each dimension was 0.881~0.954.The scale-level content validity index was 0.97,and the item-level content validity index were over 0.80.Factor analysis showed that a total of 3 factors were extracted explaining 73.582%of the total variance,namely physiological,sensory and emotional cognition.Conclusion The Chinese version of RAPS has good reliability and validity,and it can be used to evaluate the pain level of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Chinese cultural background.
作者 季子涵 张玉侠 陈潇 JI Zihan;ZHANG Yuxia;CHEN Xiao
出处 《中华护理杂志》 CSCD 北大核心 2021年第9期1435-1440,共6页 Chinese Journal of Nursing
关键词 类风湿关节炎 疼痛评估 认知性访谈 信度 效度 量表 护理 Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Assessment Cognitive Interview Reliability Validity Scale Nursing Care
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献99

  • 1杨廷忠,施卫星,许亮文.自我效能增强:临床护理的一种思路和方法[J].中华护理杂志,2004,39(5):393-396. 被引量:146
  • 2Polit, DF, Beck, CT. the content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing& Health, 2006,29,489-497.
  • 3Lynn . MR Determination and quantification of content validify [J]. Nursing Research, 1986,35(6) :382-385.
  • 4Davis, LL. 1992. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts[J]. Applied Nursing Research, 1992, 5(4): 194-197.
  • 5Polit, DF, Beck, CT, Owen, SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations [J]. Research in Nursing &Health, 2007,30,459-467.
  • 6Grant, JS, Davis, LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development[J]. Research in Nursing & Health, 1997, 20, 269-274.
  • 7Waltz, CF. Strickland, O. , & Lenz, E. Measurement in nursing and health research[M]. 3rd ed. 2005. New York: Springer Publishing Co. 20-69.
  • 8Dougados M, Soubrier M, Perrodeau E, et al. Impact of a nurse-led programme on comorbidity management and impact of a patient self-assessment of disease activity on the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results of a prospective, muhicentre, ran- domised, controlled trial (COMEDRA) [J]. Ann Rheum Dis, 2015, 74: 1725-1733. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204733.
  • 9Van den Hout WB, Tijhuis GJ, Hazes JM, et al. Cost effec- tiveness and cost utility analysis of muhidisciplinary care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised comparison of clinical nurse specialist care, inpatient team care, and day patient team care [J]. Ann Rheum Dis 2003, 62 ( 4 ) : 308-315. DOI : 10.1136/ard.62.4.308.
  • 10Dougados M, Betteridge N, Burmester GR, et al. EULAR standardised operating procedures for the elaboration, evalua- tion, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations endorsed by the EULAR standing committees[J]. Ann Rheum Dis, 2004, 63(9): 1172-1176. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2004.023697.

共引文献286

同被引文献97

引证文献10

二级引证文献18

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