Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 130 - 138 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 İndeks Tarihi: 09-05-2021
Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist
Öz: OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish translation of brief diabetic foot ulceration risk checklist (BDURC).METHODS: This methodological study was conducted at the diabetes clinic of a state hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. The data were collected with the BDURC developed by Zhou et al. in 2018. A study was conducted with 430 patients with Type 2 diabetes. The scale was retested after 4 weeks by 60 participants. Language equivalence of the scale was provided. Experts’ opinions were taken about the content validity of the scale. Reliability of the scale was determined with the test-retest reliability, item-total correlation, and internal consistency analysis.RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure with good model suitability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale and its subscales was 0.79. Test-retest scores showed no statistically significant difference between the items (p>0.05). The reliability index was higher than 0.80.CONCLUSION: The BDURC-TR is a valid and reliable tool that can be used in clinics to identify the risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Turkey
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Diabetes Atlas, 2019: 9th ed, 43-63. Available at: https://diabetesatlas.org/en/. Accessed Oct 10, 2019.
- 2. American Diabetes Association (ADA). Standarts of medical care in diabetes 2017. Diabetes Care 2017;40:11–4.
- 3. Türkiye Endokrinoloji ve Metabolizma Derneği (TEMD). Diyabetes mellitus ve komplikasyonlarının tanı, tedavi ve izlem kılavuzu. Ankara: Bayt Bilimsel Araştırmalar Basın ve Yayın; 2017.
- 4. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Temel Sağlık Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Türkiye diyabet önleme ve kontrol programı eylem planı (2011-2014). Ankara: Anıl Matbaası; 2011.
- 5. Valensi P, Girod I, Baron F, Moreau-Defarges T, Guillon P. Quality of life and clinical correlates in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab 2005;31:263–71.
- 6. Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ, del Aguila M, Smith DG, Lavery LA, et al. Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care 1999;22:157–62.
- 7. American Diabetes Association. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41: S73–S85.
- 8. Clayton W, Elasy TA. A review of the pathhophysiology, classification and treatment of foot ulcers in diabetic patients. Clinical Diabetes 2009;27:52–8.
- 9. Castillo A, Giachello A, Bates R, Concha J, Ramirez V, Sanchez C, et al. Community-based diabetes education for Latinos: the diabetes empowerment education program. Diabetes Educ 2010;36:586–94.
- 10. Crawford F, Cezard G, Chappell FM, Murray GD, Price JF, Sheikh A, et al. A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS). Health Technol Assess 2015;19:1–210.
- 11. Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, Tang S, Zhu D, Bi Y. Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis †. Ann Med 2017;49:106–16.
- 12. Zhou Q, Peng M, Zhou L, Bai J, Tong A, Liu M, et al. Development and validation of a brief diabetic foot ulceration risk checklist among diabetic patients: a multicenter longitudinal study in China. Sci Rep 2018;8:962.
- 13. Monteiro-Soares M, Russell D, Boyko EJ, Jeffcoate W, Mills JL, Morbach S, et al; International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019). Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2020;36 Suppl 1:e3273.
- 14. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998;352:854–65.
- 15. Shahbazian H, Yazdanpanah L, Latifi SM. Risk assessment of patients with diabetes for foot ulcers according to risk classification consensus of International Working Group on Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). Pak J Med Sci 2013;29:730–4.
- 16. Shashanka R, Palachandra A. Hemoglobin A1c in diabetic foot patients: a predictor of healing rate. IJSS Journal of Surgery 2016;2:34–7.
- 17. Laerd Statistics. Spearman’s rank-order correlation. 2013. Available at: https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/pc/pearson-correlation-inspss-8.php. Accessed Nov 20, 2019.
- 18. Bush CT. Nursing research. Virginia: Reston Publishing Company; 1985.
- 19. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Principles and methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
- 20. Waltz CF, Strickland O, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing and health research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2010.
- 21. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications; 2015.
- 22. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press; 2004.
- 23. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychlogical Research 2003;8:23–74.
- 24. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999;6:1–55.
- 25. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen, MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 2008;6:53–60.
- 26. Chakrabartty SN. Best Split-Half and Maximum Reliability. IOSRJRME 2013;3:1–8.
- 27. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:2276– 84.
- 28. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011;2:53–5.
- 29. Hamelniyat M, Babaeian-Jelodar N, Bagheri N, Kiani G. Determining of correlation coefficient and path analysis of performance effective traits in mutant lines of Tarom-Mahali. J. Crop Breed 2017;8:198–206.
- 30. Field A. Exploratory factor analysis. Discovering statistics using SPSS 2005;619–80.
| APA | dincer b, Akdeniz N, Kanat M, AKSOY H, Mete E, İnangil D, Inangil G (2021). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. , 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| Chicago | dincer berna,Akdeniz Necmettin,Kanat Mustafa,AKSOY Hasan,Mete Emel,İnangil Demet,Inangil Gökhan Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. (2021): 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| MLA | dincer berna,Akdeniz Necmettin,Kanat Mustafa,AKSOY Hasan,Mete Emel,İnangil Demet,Inangil Gökhan Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. , 2021, ss.130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| AMA | dincer b,Akdeniz N,Kanat M,AKSOY H,Mete E,İnangil D,Inangil G Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. . 2021; 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| Vancouver | dincer b,Akdeniz N,Kanat M,AKSOY H,Mete E,İnangil D,Inangil G Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. . 2021; 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| IEEE | dincer b,Akdeniz N,Kanat M,AKSOY H,Mete E,İnangil D,Inangil G "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist." , ss.130 - 138, 2021. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| ISNAD | dincer, berna vd. "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist". (2021), 130-138. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| APA | dincer b, Akdeniz N, Kanat M, AKSOY H, Mete E, İnangil D, Inangil G (2021). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, 8(2), 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| Chicago | dincer berna,Akdeniz Necmettin,Kanat Mustafa,AKSOY Hasan,Mete Emel,İnangil Demet,Inangil Gökhan Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri 8, no.2 (2021): 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| MLA | dincer berna,Akdeniz Necmettin,Kanat Mustafa,AKSOY Hasan,Mete Emel,İnangil Demet,Inangil Gökhan Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, vol.8, no.2, 2021, ss.130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| AMA | dincer b,Akdeniz N,Kanat M,AKSOY H,Mete E,İnangil D,Inangil G Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri. 2021; 8(2): 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| Vancouver | dincer b,Akdeniz N,Kanat M,AKSOY H,Mete E,İnangil D,Inangil G Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri. 2021; 8(2): 130 - 138. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| IEEE | dincer b,Akdeniz N,Kanat M,AKSOY H,Mete E,İnangil D,Inangil G "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist." İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, 8, ss.130 - 138, 2021. 10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
| ISNAD | dincer, berna vd. "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist". İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri 8/2 (2021), 130-138. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2021.72558 |
