ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the reliability and validity of 2 incontinence- associated dermatitis (IAD) risk assessment tools (IAD risk assessment scale and PAT) in patients with incontinence, and to search for the best risk assessment tool. Methods A total of 101 IAD cases were chosen from the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University.Reliability was evaluated by the inter- rater reliability,internal consistency,item sensitivity analysis and retest reliability; validity was evaluated by the structure validity and predictive validity. Results Cronbach α was 0.313 (IAD risk assessment scale) and 0.421(PAT);Cronbach α coefficient was the highest after the items that Change sheets and mats and relevant factors were removed respectively in two tools,which were 0.431, 0.428; The correlation between the total scores were 0.711 (P<0.01)(IAD risk assessment scale)and 0.498 (PAT)(P<0.01);Area under curve were 0.661 (IAD risk assessment scale),0.864 (PAT); the best cut-off value to forecast a poor prognosis was 53.5 (IAD risk assessment scale),6.5 (PAT). Conclusions The reliability and validity of IAD risk assessment scale and PAT are low. The change of sheets and mats and Related influencing factors are needed to be adjusted and revised.
ABSTRACT
Objective To examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the perineal assessment tool (PAT),and explore its applicability in domestic patients with incontinence.Methods A convenience sample of 100 patients were recruited for evaluation.The patients with incontinence were assessed for lAD risk using the Chinese version of PAT.The reliability tests were conducted on internal consistency,interrater,test-retest,and the validity tests were conducted on content validity index(CVI),exploratory factor analysis,receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC).Results The Chinese version of PAT comprised 4 items,Cronbach's α was 0.512,and items related to the total score was appropriate; inter-rater reliability was 0.889; test-retest reliability was 0.791.CVI was 0.95.Exploratory analysis showed that the most interpretable solution consisted of 2 factors.The accumulative variance contribution explained 67.397％ of variance of the total scale.Predictive validity was moderate,the best cut-off point was determined at 6.5 points.Conclusions Due to the special design,its internal consistency reliability was low; content validity was relatively sufficient,but it still needs further revision and test.Inter-rater reliability,test-retest reliability,construct validity,predictive validity was generally good,and it could be used as the screening tool of IAD risk.The results prompt PAT could be used as a benchmark,and we can adjust the entry of PAT to provide a more accurate IAD predicting tool by studying the IAD risk factors.