Literature DB >> 6705664

Development of the diabetes knowledge (DKN) scales: forms DKNA, DKNB, and DKNC.

S M Dunn, J M Bryson, P L Hoskins, J B Alford, D J Handelsman, J R Turtle.   

Abstract

The Diabetes Knowledge Assessment (DKN) scales were developed to meet a specific need for rapid and reliable knowledge assessment in diabetic patients. Item format and item selection from an initial pool of 89 items were determined by pilot-testing over 300 diabetic subjects. Reliability analysis of the resulting 40 multiple-choice items, with a further sample of 56 subjects, gave a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.92. Parallel forms DKNA, DKNB, and DKNC, each of 15 items selected from the parent set, had alpha coefficients above 0.82 and correlated 0.90 with each other. A full clinical trial, using DKNA, DKNB, and DKNC in randomized order of presentation, was conducted with 219 subjects attending a 2-day diabetes education program. Overall DKN scores improved from 7.6 (51%) to 11.3 (75%). Analysis of variance confirmed that DKNA, DKNB, and DKNC were equivalent forms at pretest. Mean posttest scores on DKNB were lower than the other scales (P less than 0.001), but variances were equivalent for all three. A specific local change in the education program format was found to account for this discrepancy in the DKNB posttest mean. In situations where comprehensive assessment of diabetes knowledge would be time-consuming and unnecessary, these results indicate that rapid and reliable assessment is possible with a scale of only 15 validated items. The development of parallel forms of the scale extends the range of retesting possibilities for diagnosis and research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6705664     DOI: 10.2337/diacare.7.1.36

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  21 in total

1.  A pilot study of motivational interviewing in adolescents with diabetes.

Authors:  S Channon; V J Smith; J W Gregory
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.791

2.  Self-management among patients living with diabetes in the United States Virgin Islands.

Authors:  Maxine A Nunez; Hossein Yarandi; Marcella Nunez-Smith
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2011-02

Review 3.  Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Stefan Schneider; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Assessing Informal and Formal Diabetes Knowledge in African American Older Adults With Uncontrolled Diabetes.

Authors:  Kia Skrine Jeffers; Mary Cadogan; MarySue V Heilemann; Linda R Phillips
Journal:  J Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 1.254

Review 5.  Impact of blood glucose monitoring on diabetic control: obstacles and interventions.

Authors:  T Wysocki
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  1989-04

6.  A reliable, valid instrument to assess patient knowledge about urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Aparna D Shah; Michael P Massagli; Neeraj Kohli; Sujatha S Rajan; Kari P Braaten; Lennox Hoyte
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-05-15

7.  Do education groups help diabetics and their parents?

Authors:  A F Hackett; S Court; J N Matthews; C McCowen; J M Parkin
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 3.791

8.  Assessment of a short diabetes knowledge instrument for older and minority adults.

Authors:  Sara A Quandt; Edward H Ip; Julienne K Kirk; Santiago Saldana; Shyh-Huei Chen; Ha Nguyen; Ronny A Bell; Thomas A Arcury
Journal:  Diabetes Educ       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 2.140

9.  Validation of the diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia (DHL) knowledge instrument in Malaysia.

Authors:  Pauline S M Lai; Siew Siang Chua; Ching Hooi Tan; Siew Pheng Chan
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Blood glucose testing and primary prevention of diabetes mellitus type 2--evaluation of the effect of evidence based patient information.

Authors:  Jutta Genz; Burkhard Haastert; Gabriele Meyer; Anke Steckelberg; Hardy Müller; Frank Verheyen; Dennis Cole; Wolfgang Rathmann; Bettina Nowotny; Michael Roden; Guido Giani; Andreas Mielck; Christian Ohmann; Andrea Icks
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.