Introduction
Radio-diagnostic procedures (CT/MRI)
are common investigations done in hospital settings. A layman who is
undergoing a radiodiagnostic procedure may have different perceptions
regarding the procedure. It is the responsibility of health
professionals to inform the patient about the procedure at patient’s
level of understanding. Patients perceive the procedure in different
ways. By developing a self-report scale to assess the perceptions of
patients posted for radio diagnostic procedure, the aim was to
facilitate free expression of patients’ misperceptions about the
procedure. This will help the health team members to identify the
sensitive areas where they have to give more attention when preparing
the patients for diagnostic procedures.
Objectives
-
To develop a self-report scale to assess perceptions of patients undergoing radio-diagnostic towards the procedures (CT/MRI)
-
To establish content validity of the self-report scale
-
To establish reliability of the self-report scale in terms of internal consistency
Procedure for tool development
-
Due to non-availability of a relevant standardized
research tool, the researchers constructed a tool based on study
objectives.
-
The tool was developed by investigators after reviewing related research studies and discussion with faculty.
-
A blue print was prepared for the tool on perceptions of patients posted for radio diagnostic procedures (CT/MRI).
-
The tool developed was a self-report scale to assess perceptions of patients posted for radio diagnostic procedures (CT/MRI).
Description of the tool
-
The tool can be administered in patients who are posted for radio-diagnostic procedures, especially (CT/MRI).
-
Candidates were instructed to mark ‘Yes’ if they ‘agree’ with the statement and ‘No’ if the ‘disagree’ with the statement
-
If the patient is giving a positive response to a negative item, it is the responsibility of the researcher/investigator to explain the true information and clarify doubts.
-
Initially, the number of items in the tool was 15, which include both positive and negative items.
-
3 items were included later as experts suggested.
-
We considered items 1, 7,10,17,18 positive items and 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,16 were negative.
| Sr. No | Items | Yes | No |
1
|
The procedure will help to find out the cause of my illness | ||
2
|
I am afraid to undergo the procedure | ||
3
|
I am anxious about the result of the procedure | ||
4
|
I will be made unconscious when undergoing the procedure | ||
5
|
It is not necessary to undergo this procedure | ||
6
|
This procedure is a treatment method | ||
7
|
This procedure is done because my doctor has told to do it | ||
8
|
I wish my relative is allowed to stay with me during the procedure | ||
9
|
This procedure will cure my illness | ||
10.
|
This procedure will not cause any harm to me | ||
11.
|
This is a painful procedure | ||
12.
|
In this procedure electric current is passed in to the body | ||
13.
|
This procedure will have some adverse effects in later life | ||
14.
|
This procedure is advised in severe illness only | ||
15.
|
This procedure is a surgical operation | ||
Added Later
|
This procedure is likely to damage the healthy tissue of my body | ||
Added Later
|
I have been adequately explained about the procedure | ||
Added Later
|
This procedure is expensive |
Scoring of the tool:
-
Responses to individual items should be interpreted separately to understand the person’s perceptions to the particular item.
-
For the purpose of establishing reliability a total score was generated for each sample.
-
Each response was given an option of Yes/No.
-
Positive items were scored as Yes-1 and No- 0 and the negative items were scored as Yes-0 and No-1.
-
In future use we suggest, association of the total scores with socio demographic variable should be considered.
Content validity
- Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure.
- To ensure content validity, the tools along with blue print, objectives and criteria check list were submitted to 7 experts.
- The experts were requested to give their opinion & suggestion on relevancy, accuracy and appropriateness of the items.
| Question | Agreement | Disagreement |
1 |
80% |
20% |
2 |
100% |
- |
3 |
100% |
- |
4 |
80% |
20% |
5 |
80% |
20% |
6 |
100% |
|
7 |
100% |
|
8 |
80% |
20% |
9 |
100% |
|
10 |
100% |
|
11 |
100% |
|
12 |
100% |
|
13 |
100% |
|
14 |
100% |
|
15 |
100% |
As two experts suggested, 3 additional items were included. Scoring pattern was changed to dichotomous answering pattern.
Language validity
- The tool was translated to Kannada by a professional and language expert.
Face validity of the translated tool was done.
Interpretation of Validity
- All the experts agreed on all the items. Adequate level of validity was established.
Reliability
- Reliability of an instrument is the degree of consistency with which it measures the attribute it is supposed to be measuring.
Procedure for data collection
Data collection is a process of acquiring
subjects and collecting information needed for the study.
The tool was administered to 20 patients who are posted for
radio diagnostic procedures (CT/MRI), on 4th and 5th of June’08. The
responses were tabulated and data was analyzed. Reliability co
efficient for internal consistency was computed using Kuder Richardson
method manually and using SPSS program.
Formula used for the calculation was Kuder Richardson 21
KR21= k [1-m (k-m)]
K-1 ks2
Where,
k = number of items
m = mean of the test scores
s = standard deviation of the test scores
KR21= k [1-m (k-m)]
K-1 ks2
Where,
k = number of items
m = mean of the test scores
s = standard deviation of the test scores
Calculation
According to this data:
K = 18
m= 11.6
s = 2.94
Therefore, KR 21 = 0.5565
Interpretation
-
The reliability obtained was 0.5565
-
Reliability was established using SPSS program and found =0.68
Conclusion
There are various methods of checking
validity and reliability of research tools. We have established content
validity and internal consistency of the self-report scale, which we
have developed. The reliability and validity indexes should be
interpreted based on the significance of the problem.
References
-
Polit DF, Hungler BP. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company; 1998.
-
Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of Nursing Research. 4th Ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Publications; 2001.
-
Treece JW, Treece EW. Elements of Research in Nursing (3rded.). St. Louis: Mosby; 1982.
0 comments:
Post a Comment