Validação de instrumentos para avaliação do conhecimento e da habilidade acerca da sondagem vesical de demora
That study had the aim to validate an instrument to evaluate the knowledge about the Urinary Catheterization (UC) in males. Cross-sectional, descriptive, quantitative and methodological study, accomplished in Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Universidade do Estado do Rio Grande do...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Dissertação |
| Idioma: | por |
| Publicado em: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/14794 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | That study had the aim to validate an instrument to evaluate the knowledge about the Urinary Catheterization (UC) in males. Cross-sectional, descriptive, quantitative and methodological study, accomplished in Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Universidade do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte (UERN) and a private university from Rio Grande do Norte. Sample of 27 judges selected from the inclusion criteria: registered nurses, discipline of semiology and/or semiotics teachers, with at least 1 year of experience in the disciplines, to work at UFRN, UERN or in private university and agree to participate voluntarily with the signing of the Consent Form. Study developed in three stages: a) elaboration of twos instruments based on the scientific literature, resulting in a structured observation script type checklist consisting of 36 items and a knowledge questionnaire with 12 questions; b) submission of instruments to judges from June to September 2012, which should evaluate each item in "adequate," "adequate with changes" and "inappropriate", and make an overall evaluation of each instrument based on 10 requirements; c) and validation with a verification of the agreement level among the judges, through the application of Kappa Index (K) and Content Validity Index (CVI). It was used the consensus level higher than 0.60 (good) for Kappa Index and higher than 0.70 for CVI. The research project had favorable opinion from the Ethics in Research/HUOL (CAAE n. 0002.0.294.000-10). After being coded and tabulated, the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Of the 27 judges who evaluated the instrument, 77.8% are female, with a mean age of 36.6 (± 9.0) years, 63.0% worked in UFRN, 74.1% had master degree and 63.0% worked exclusively on teaching. The experience time mean in teaching was 7.9 (± 8.0) years and in the disciplines of semiology and/or semiotics in nursing was 5.5 (± 6.7) years. In judgment of the checklist and knowledge questionnaire, no step/question was considered inappropriate, since all achieved level of agreement within the established values. All the checklist steps obtained good to excellent K (between 0.60 and 1.00). Of the 36 items, 25 had excellent K (0.75 ≤ K <1.00) and excellent total K (K = 0.83). Regarding the IVC, all steps reached levels above 0.70 (between 0.74 and 1.00) and CVI total was 0.90. All questionnaire questions evaluated separately (K from 0.60 to 0.93 and CVI from 0.74 to 0.96) and generally (K from 0.79 to 1.00 and CVI from 0.89 to 1.00) had evaluation levels of content validity within the established values. The instruments were reformulated based on the agreement levels between judges and international guidelines, dissertations and scientific articles. Both instruments proved to be valid regarding to their content, allowing a clear and objective evaluation of knowledge and skills about UC, both nursing students as well as other students and health professionals, since the use of valid measures seeking the reduction of the risk of the results distorted |
|---|