• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[糖尿病患者自我管理知识、态度和行为评估量表简版的效度、信度和可接受性]

[Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the brief version of the self-management knowledge, attitude, and behavior assessment scale for diabetes patients].

作者信息

Wu Y Z, Wang W J, Feng N P, Chen B, Li G C, Liu J W, Liu H L, Yang Y Y

机构信息

National Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100050, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Jul 6;50(7):589-93. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.07.005.

DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.07.005
PMID:27412833
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the brief version of the self-management knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB) assessment scale for diabetes patients.

METHODS

Diabetes patients who were managed at the Xinkaipu Community Health Service Center of Tianxin in Changsha, Hunan Province were selected for survey by cluster sampling. A total of 350 diabetes patients were surveyed using the brief scale to collect data on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of self-management. Content validity was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient between the brief scale and subscales of knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Structure validity was evaluated by factor analysis, and discrimination validity was evaluated by an independent sample t-test between the high-score and low-score groups. Reliability was tested by internal consistency reliability and split-half reliability. The evaluation indexes of internal consistency reliability were Cronbach's α coefficients, θ coefficient, and Ω coefficient. Acceptability was evaluated by valid response rate and completion time of the brief scale.

RESULTS

A total of 346(98.9%) valid questionnaires were returned, with average survey time of (11.43±3.4) minutes. Average score of the brief scale was 78.85 ± 11.22; scores of the knowledge, attitude, and behavior subscales were 16.45 ± 4.42, 21.33 ± 2.03, and 41.07 ± 8.34, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients between the brief scale and the knowledge, attitude, and behavior subscales were 0.92, 0.42, and 0.60, respectively; P-values were all less than 0.01, indicating that the face validity and content validity of the brief scale were achieved to a good level. The common factor cumulative variance contribution rate of the brief scale and three subscales was from 53.66% to 61.75%, which achieved more than 50% of the approved standard. There were 11 common factors; 41 of the total 42 items had factor loadings above 0.40 in their relevant common factor, indicating that the brief scale and three subscales had good construct validity. Patients were divided into a high-score group and a low-score group, then scores of the brief scale and three subscales were compared between the groups using a t-test. The results were all significant, indicating that the brief scale and three subscales had good discriminate validity. Mean scores of the brief scale and three subscales of the high-score group were 91.55±6.81, 19.51±2.17, 22.74±1.88, and 49.30±6.20, respectively; these were higher than the low-score group (65.89±5.79, 12.29±4.76, 20.22±1.88, and 33.39±6.17, respectively) with t-values 27.76, 13.31, 9.20, and 17.56 (P-values were less than 0.001). The Cronbach's α coefficient, θ coefficient, Ω coefficient, and split-half reliability of the brief scale were 0.83, 0.87, 0.96, and 0.84, respectively. These values for the three subscales were all above 0.70, except for the θ coefficient of the attitude subscale with 0.64, indicating that the brief scale and three subscales had acceptable internal consistency reliability.

CONCLUSION

The brief version of the diabetes self-management knowledge, attitude, and behavior assessment scale showed good acceptability, validity, and reliability, to responsibly evaluate self-management KAB among patients with diabetes.

摘要

目的

评估糖尿病患者自我管理知识、态度和行为(KAB)评估量表简版的有效性、可靠性和可接受性。

方法

采用整群抽样法,选取湖南省长沙市天心区新开铺社区卫生服务中心管理的糖尿病患者进行调查。共350例糖尿病患者使用该简版量表进行调查,收集自我管理知识、态度和行为方面的数据。通过简版量表与知识、态度和行为分量表之间的Pearson相关系数评估内容效度。通过因子分析评估结构效度,通过高分和低分两组之间的独立样本t检验评估区分效度。通过内部一致性信度和分半信度检验可靠性。内部一致性信度的评估指标为Cronbach's α系数、θ系数和Ω系数。通过简版量表的有效回收率和完成时间评估可接受性。

结果

共回收有效问卷346份(98.9%),平均调查时间为(11.43±3.4)分钟。简版量表平均得分为78.85±11.22;知识、态度和行为分量表得分分别为16.45±4.42、21.33±2.03和41.07±8.34。简版量表与知识、态度和行为分量表之间的Pearson相关系数分别为0.92、0.42和0.60;P值均小于0.01,表明简版量表的表面效度和内容效度达到了良好水平。简版量表和三个分量表的共同因子累积方差贡献率为53.66%至61.75%,达到了认可标准的50%以上。共有11个共同因子;42个项目中的41个在其相关共同因子中的因子载荷高于0.40,表明简版量表和三个分量表具有良好的结构效度。将患者分为高分组和低分组,然后用t检验比较两组间简版量表和三个分量表的得分。结果均具有显著性,表明简版量表和三个分量表具有良好的区分效度。高分组简版量表和三个分量表的平均得分分别为91.55±6.81、19.51±2.17、22.74±1.88和49.30±6.20;均高于低分组(分别为65.89±5.79、12.29±4.76、20.22±1.88和33.39±6.17),t值分别为27.76、13.31、9.20和17.56(P值均小于0.001)。简版量表的Cronbach's α系数、θ系数、Ω系数和分半信度分别为0.83、0.87、0.96和0.84。三个分量表的这些值均高于0.70,但态度分量表的θ系数为0.64,表明简版量表和三个分量表具有可接受的内部一致性信度。

结论

糖尿病自我管理知识、态度和行为评估量表简版显示出良好的可接受性、有效性和可靠性,可用于对糖尿病患者的自我管理KAB进行可靠评估。

相似文献

1
[Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the brief version of the self-management knowledge, attitude, and behavior assessment scale for diabetes patients].[糖尿病患者自我管理知识、态度和行为评估量表简版的效度、信度和可接受性]
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Jul 6;50(7):589-93. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.07.005.
2
[Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the scale of knowledge, attitude, and behavior of lifestyle intervention in a diabetes high-risk population].糖尿病高危人群生活方式干预知识、态度和行为量表的效度、信度及可接受性
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Jul 6;50(7):584-8. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.07.004.
3
[Evaluation on the validity and reliability of the Diabetes Self-management Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Assessment Scale (DSKAB)].糖尿病自我管理知识、态度与行为评估量表(DSKAB)的效度和信度评价
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Jan;50(1):56-60. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.01.010.
4
[Study on developing a Brief Version of Diabetes Self-management Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Assessment Scale (DSKAB-SF)].糖尿病自我管理知识、态度和行为评估量表简版(DSKAB-SF)的研制研究
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Jan;50(1):50-5. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.01.009.
5
[Development on the Diabetes Self-management Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Assessment Scale (DSKAB)].[糖尿病自我管理知识、态度与行为评估量表(DSKAB)的研制]
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Jan;50(1):40-9. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.01.008.
6
Development and validation of the Chinese version of the Diabetes Management Self-efficacy Scale.中文版糖尿病管理自我效能量表的编制与验证
Int J Nurs Stud. 2008 Apr;45(4):534-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.08.020. Epub 2006 Oct 19.
7
[Study on the reliability and validity of the Chinese Criteria of Health Scale for the elderly people].[老年人健康量表中国常模的信效度研究]
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2022 Dec 6;56(12):1809-1814. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112150-20220223-00170.
8
[Development and performance test of the environment scale of unintentional injury in the home for children aged 0-6 years old in urban area of China].[中国城市0-6岁儿童家庭意外伤害环境量表的研制与性能测试]
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Feb 6;54(2):139-143. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2020.02.005.
9
The development and psychometric properties of the bipolar disorders knowledge scale.双相障碍知识量表的编制及心理测量学特性。
J Affect Disord. 2018 Oct 1;238:645-650. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.043. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
10
Chinese version of the clinical supervision self-assessment tool: Assessment of reliability and validity.临床督导自我评估工具中文版:信效度评估
Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Mar;98:104734. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104734. Epub 2020 Dec 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Positive impact of mobile educational platforms on blood glucose control in patients with nephrotic syndrome and steroid-induced diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled study.移动教育平台对肾病综合征和类固醇诱导型糖尿病患者血糖控制的积极影响:一项随机对照研究。
BMC Endocr Disord. 2025 Apr 27;25(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12902-024-01802-2.
2
A novel questionnaire for evaluating digital tool use (DTUQ-D) among individuals with type 2 diabetes: exploring the digital landscape.一种用于评估2型糖尿病患者数字工具使用情况的新型问卷(DTUQ-D):探索数字领域。
Front Public Health. 2024 Apr 5;12:1374848. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1374848. eCollection 2024.
3
Diabetes self-management and its related factors among Chinese young adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
中国年轻 2 型糖尿病患者的自我管理及其相关因素。
Nurs Open. 2023 Sep;10(9):6125-6135. doi: 10.1002/nop2.1834. Epub 2023 May 23.
4
Assessment of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients' behavioral characteristics associated with integrated treatment and prevention services in community health centers in China.评估中国社区卫生服务中心 2 型糖尿病患者与综合治疗及预防服务相关的行为特征。
Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 25;10:1084946. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1084946. eCollection 2022.
5
Effects of message framing on self-management behaviour among patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial protocol.信息框架对 2 型糖尿病患者自我管理行为的影响:一项随机对照试验方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 28;12(6):e056450. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056450.
6
Cross-Sectional Study on Health Literacy and Internet Accessibility Among Patients With DM in Gansu, China.横断面研究:中国甘肃地区糖尿病患者健康素养与互联网可及性调查
Front Public Health. 2021 Oct 13;9:692089. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.692089. eCollection 2021.
7
Can autonomy support have an effect on type 2 diabetes glycemic control? Results of a cluster randomized controlled trial.自主性支持会对2型糖尿病的血糖控制产生影响吗?一项整群随机对照试验的结果。
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020 Apr;8(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001018.