Journal of nutrition education and behavior · 2021
Reliability and Validity of a Carbohydrate-Counting Knowledge Questionnaire for Young Australians With Type 1 Diabetes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beal Jacqueline, Farrent Shelley, Farndale Lavinia, Bell Lucinda
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability and validity of a carbohydrate-counting knowledge questionnaire in young Australians with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).
METHODS: Children or young adults (<20 years) with T1DM, or their parents, completed the 72-item Australian PedCarbQuiz (AusPCQ), adapted from the American PedCarbQuiz, and an expert assessment of carbohydrate-counting knowledge. Responses were scored and summed (0-72, higher scores = greater knowledge). Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach α, and relative validity using Spearman correlations (with HbA1c) and Bland-Altman analysis (with the expert assessment).
RESULTS: Australian PedCarbQuiz reliability (n = 44, mean score = 59.7 ± 5.6) was acceptable (α = 0.83). There was a lack of agreement (mean bias = 10.7, P = 0.008) and significant proportional bias between AusPCQ scores and expert assessments (β = -0.73 [95% confidence interval, -1.82 to -0.79]; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The AusPCQ was shown to be reliable but not valid in a small sample. Testing in a larger sample is warranted.
METHODS: Children or young adults (<20 years) with T1DM, or their parents, completed the 72-item Australian PedCarbQuiz (AusPCQ), adapted from the American PedCarbQuiz, and an expert assessment of carbohydrate-counting knowledge. Responses were scored and summed (0-72, higher scores = greater knowledge). Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach α, and relative validity using Spearman correlations (with HbA1c) and Bland-Altman analysis (with the expert assessment).
RESULTS: Australian PedCarbQuiz reliability (n = 44, mean score = 59.7 ± 5.6) was acceptable (α = 0.83). There was a lack of agreement (mean bias = 10.7, P = 0.008) and significant proportional bias between AusPCQ scores and expert assessments (β = -0.73 [95% confidence interval, -1.82 to -0.79]; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The AusPCQ was shown to be reliable but not valid in a small sample. Testing in a larger sample is warranted.