Anthony Gélis1,2, Arnaud Dupeyron3,4, Jean Pierre Daures5, David Goossens6, Dominique Gault7, Jean Paul Pedelucq8, Michel Enjalbert9, Eric Maupas10, Paul Kennedy11, Charles Fattal12. 1. Centre de Rééducation Neurologique Mutualiste Propara, Parc Euromédecine, Montpellier, France. a.gelis@propara.fr. 2. Laboratoire Epsylon, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. a.gelis@propara.fr. 3. Département de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Caremeau, Nîmes, France. 4. LaboratoireEuromov, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 5. Institut Universitaire de Recherche Clinique, Montpellier, France. 6. Centre de rééducation de la Tour de Gassies, Bruges, France. 7. Centre de rééducation Clemenceau, Strasbourg, France. 8. Centre de Rééducation Fonctionnelle de Kerpape, Ploemeur, France. 9. Centre de Rééducation Bouffard Vercelli, Cerbere, France. 10. CentreMutualiste de rééducation, Albi, France. 11. Department of Clinical Psychology, National Spinal Injuries Centre, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire, UK. 12. Centre de reeducation fonctionnelle La Chataigneraie, Menucourt, France.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional psychometrics study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the construct validity and internal consistency of the revised Skin Management Needs Assessment Checklist (revised SMnac). SETTING: Six spinal cord rehabilitation centers. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-two community-dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) were included. Construct validity was assessed by a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the revised SMnac and several questionnaires: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Braden scale; or clinical variables: educational level, presence of a pressure ulcer (PU), history of multiple PUs, time since injury, and pain. RESULTS: The study evidenced construct validity with a fair to moderate correlation coefficient between the revised SMnac and Rosenberg scale (rs = 0.25; p = 0.03), active coping (rs = 0.29; p = 0.001), HADS (rs = -0.43; p < 0.0001), and time since injury (rs = 0.49; p < 0.0001). The presence of PU and history of multiple PUs were strongly correlated with the revised SMnac score (respectively, p = 0.01 and 0.001). Internal consistency was excellent (α = 0.907). CONCLUSION: These results show that the revised SMnac is a valid tool to assess PU self-management in individuals with SCI. Further studies are needed to assess the revised SMnac's responsiveness to change.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional psychometrics study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the construct validity and internal consistency of the revised Skin Management Needs Assessment Checklist (revised SMnac). SETTING: Six spinal cord rehabilitation centers. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-two community-dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) were included. Construct validity was assessed by a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the revised SMnac and several questionnaires: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Braden scale; or clinical variables: educational level, presence of a pressure ulcer (PU), history of multiple PUs, time since injury, and pain. RESULTS: The study evidenced construct validity with a fair to moderate correlation coefficient between the revised SMnac and Rosenberg scale (rs = 0.25; p = 0.03), active coping (rs = 0.29; p = 0.001), HADS (rs = -0.43; p < 0.0001), and time since injury (rs = 0.49; p < 0.0001). The presence of PU and history of multiple PUs were strongly correlated with the revised SMnac score (respectively, p = 0.01 and 0.001). Internal consistency was excellent (α = 0.907). CONCLUSION: These results show that the revised SMnac is a valid tool to assess PU self-management in individuals with SCI. Further studies are needed to assess the revised SMnac's responsiveness to change.