James T Fitzgerald1, Martha M Funnell2, Robert M Anderson2, Robin Nwankwo2, R Brent Stansfield2, Grecthen A Piatt2. 1. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor VA Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Prof Fitzgerald) 2. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Mrs Funnell, Dr Anderson, Ms Nwankwo, Dr Stansfield, Dr Piatt).
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of the revised Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT2). The original test was updated to reflect current diabetes care and education guidelines. The test has 2 components: a 14-item general test and a 9-item insulin use subscale. METHODS: Two samples were used to evaluate the DKT2. The first came from an online survey company (Qualtrics, LCC) (n = 101) and the second from University of Michigan's (UofM) Diabetes Registry (n = 89). Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to calculate reliability. To examine validity, comparisons by type of diabetes, insulin use and oral medication use, and educational level were completed. Correlations between diabetes duration and both the general test and insulin subscale were calculated for the UofM sample. RESULTS: The two samples differed demographically. While the reliabilities between the samples were disparate, when combined, the coefficient alphas demonstrated reliability for both the general test (.77) and the insulin use subscale (.84). The validation comparisons proved to be similar; different results occurred between samples but when combined demonstrated validity. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity tests were inconsistent by sample. The different results can, in part, be attributed to the demographic differences between the 2 samples. With the exception of age, the samples differed in every other measured variable. However, when the samples were combined, the analyses supported the reliability and validity of the Diabetes Knowledge Test 2. The DKT2 is a quick and low-cost method of assessing general knowledge of diabetes and diabetes self-care.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of the revised Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT2). The original test was updated to reflect current diabetes care and education guidelines. The test has 2 components: a 14-item general test and a 9-item insulin use subscale. METHODS: Two samples were used to evaluate the DKT2. The first came from an online survey company (Qualtrics, LCC) (n = 101) and the second from University of Michigan's (UofM) Diabetes Registry (n = 89). Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to calculate reliability. To examine validity, comparisons by type of diabetes, insulin use and oral medication use, and educational level were completed. Correlations between diabetes duration and both the general test and insulin subscale were calculated for the UofM sample. RESULTS: The two samples differed demographically. While the reliabilities between the samples were disparate, when combined, the coefficient alphas demonstrated reliability for both the general test (.77) and the insulin use subscale (.84). The validation comparisons proved to be similar; different results occurred between samples but when combined demonstrated validity. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity tests were inconsistent by sample. The different results can, in part, be attributed to the demographic differences between the 2 samples. With the exception of age, the samples differed in every other measured variable. However, when the samples were combined, the analyses supported the reliability and validity of the Diabetes Knowledge Test 2. The DKT2 is a quick and low-cost method of assessing general knowledge of diabetes and diabetes self-care.
Authors: Elizabeth M Vaughan; Aanand D Naik; Courtney M Lewis; John P Foreyt; Susan L Samson; David J Hyman Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Lawrence Fisher; Danielle Hessler; William H Polonsky; Umesh Masharani; Susan Guzman; Vicky Bowyer; Lisa Strycker; Andrew Ahmann; Marina Basina; Ian Blumer; Charles Chloe; Sarah Kim; Anne L Peters; Martha Shumway; Karen Weihs; Patricia Wu Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Christina R Whitehouse; Judith A Long; Lori McLeer Maloney; Kimberly Daniels; David A Horowitz; Kathryn H Bowles Journal: Res Gerontol Nurs Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 1.571
Authors: Sahnah Lim; Laura C Wyatt; Harmanpreet Chauhan; Jennifer M Zanowiak; Rucha Kavathe; Hardayal Singh; Simona C Kwon; Chau Trin-Shevrin; Nadia S Islam Journal: Health Behav Res Date: 2019
Authors: Craig H Syrop; Sarah A Wernimont; Diedre K Fleener; Joseph M Kardos; Linda M Rubenstein; Janet I Andrews Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.681