Eigenmann C A, Colagiuri R, Skinner T C, Trevena L
The Diabetes Unit-Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Diabet Med. 2009 Apr;26(4):425-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02697.x.
To critically appraise the suitability, validity, reliability, feasibility and sensitivity to change of available psychometric tools for measuring the education outcomes identified in the (Australian) National Consensus on Outcomes and Indicators for Diabetes Patient Education.
Potentially suitable psychometric measurement tools were identified through a two-step process. Step 1: a structured semi-systematic literature review and consultation with experts; step 2: development of inclusion criteria and a formal, purpose-designed, systematically derived Appraisal Checklist-from the literature and with expert psychometric advice-to critically appraise the identified tools for relevance, validity, reliability, responsiveness to change, burden, feasibility and acceptability.
Searching medline, PubMed, PsycINFO and cinhal yielded 37 diabetes-specific and generic measurement tools. Eleven of these did not address the research questions, leaving 26 tools. Of these, 11 assessed indicators of psychological adjustment; seven assessed various domains of self-determination; five measured self-management behaviours, for example, foot care, blood glucose testing and lifestyle domains; and three measured diabetes knowledge und understanding, respectively. When the Appraisal Checklist was applied, only three tools met all criteria, namely the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale, the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) scale and the Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (ADS). However, a number of other suitable tools [i.e. the Diabetes Integration Scale (ATT19), the Diabetes Health Profile (DHP-1/18), the Self-Care Inventory-Revised (SCI-R), the Diabetes Management Self Efficacy Scale Australian/English version (DMSES-A/E), the Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF)] met all except one criteria, that is, either no formal test-retest or no responsiveness to change data.
Although numerous tools were identified, few met rigorous psychometric appraisal criteria. Issues of suitability, adequate psychometric testing for the intended purpose, burden and feasibility need to be considered before adopting tools for measuring diabetes education outcomes.
严格评估现有心理测量工具对于测量（澳大利亚）《糖尿病患者教育成果与指标全国共识》中所确定的教育成果的适用性、有效性、可靠性、可行性及对变化的敏感性。
通过两步流程确定潜在合适的心理测量工具。第一步：进行结构化的半系统文献综述并咨询专家；第二步：制定纳入标准以及一份正式的、专门设计的、基于文献并经心理测量专家建议系统得出的评估清单，以严格评估所确定工具的相关性、有效性、可靠性、对变化的反应性、负担、可行性及可接受性。
检索医学期刊数据库（Medline）、医学期刊全文数据库（PubMed）、心理学文摘数据库（PsycINFO）和护理学与健康领域数据库（CINHAL）后，获得了37种糖尿病特异性及通用测量工具。其中11种未涉及研究问题，剩余26种工具。在这些工具中，11种评估心理调适指标；7种评估自我决定的各个领域；5种测量自我管理行为，如足部护理、血糖检测和生活方式领域；3种分别测量糖尿病知识与理解。应用评估清单时，只有3种工具符合所有标准，即糖尿病问题领域（PAID）量表、糖尿病自我护理活动总结（SDSCA）量表和糖尿病评估量表（ADS）。然而，其他一些合适的工具[即糖尿病整合量表（ATT19）、糖尿病健康概况（DHP - 1/18）、修订后的自我护理量表（SCI - R）、澳大利亚/英文版糖尿病管理自我效能量表（DMSES - A/E）、糖尿病赋权量表简版（DES - SF）]除一项标准外均符合，即要么没有正式的重测，要么没有对变化数据的反应性。
尽管识别出了众多工具，但很少有工具符合严格的心理测量评估标准。在采用测量糖尿病教育成果的工具之前，需要考虑适用性、针对预期目的进行充分的心理测量测试、负担和可行性等问题。
