Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing (대한간호학회지)

Korean Society of Nursing Science (한국간호과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Measurement Properties of Self-report Questionnaires Published in Korean Nursing Journals

자가 보고형 질문지 측정 속성에 대한 평가: 국내 간호학술지에 게재된 논문을 중심으로

  • Received : 2012.04.06
  • Accepted : 2012.09.27
  • Published : 2013.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate measurement properties of self-report questionnaires for studies published in Korean nursing journals. Methods: Of 424 Korean nursing articles initially identified, 168 articles met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the measurements used in the studies and interpretability were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. It consists of items on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, construct validity including structural validity, hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity, and responsiveness. For each item of the COSMIN checklist, measurement properties are rated on a four-point scale: excellent, good, fair, and poor. Each measurement property is scored with worst score counts. Results: All articles used the classical test theory for measurement properties. Internal consistency (72.6%), construct validity (56.5%), and content validity (38.2%) were most frequently reported properties being rated as 'excellent' by COSMIN checklist, whereas other measurement properties were rarely reported. Conclusion: A systematic review of measurement properties including interpretability of most instruments warrants further research and nursing-focused checklists assessing measurement properties should be developed to facilitate intervention outcomes across Korean studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Bang, K. S., Lee, S. O., Park, Y. I., Jun, M. H., Kim, H. S., Son, H. M., et al. (2008). Analysis of published papers and their keywords in the Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education 2007. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education, 14(2), 244-251. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5977/JKASNE.2008.14.2.244
  2. Bock, R. D. (1997). A brief history of item theory response. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 21-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.11 11/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00605.x
  3. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Walter J Lonner & John W Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  4. Choi, K. S., Song, M. S., Hwang, A. R., Kim, K. H., Chung, M. S., Shin, S. R., et al. (2000). The trends of nursing research in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 30(5), 1207-1218. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2000.30.5.1207
  5. Chung, B. Y., Yi, M. S., & Choi, E. H. (2008). Trends of nursing research in the Journal of Oncology Nursing. Journal of Oncology Nursing, 8(1), 61-66.
  6. DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J., et al. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(2), 155-164. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x
  7. Jeong, G. H., Ahn, Y. M., & Cho, D. S. (2005). Coincidence analysis of keywords of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing with MeSH. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 35(7), 1420-1425. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2005.35.7.1420
  8. Kane, R. L. (2006). Understanding health care outcomes research (2nd ed.). Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett.
  9. Kang, H. C. (2002). Analysis of statistical method applied in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing for recent 3 years (1999-2001). Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 32(6), 929-935. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2002.32.6.929
  10. Kim, J. I., Lee, E. H., Kang, H. S., Oh, H. E., Lee, E. J., Jun, E. M., et al. (2010). Analysis of published papers by keywords and research methods in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (2007-2009). Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing, 16(3), 307-316. http://dx.doi. org/10.40 69/kjwhn.2010.16.3.307 https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2010.16.3.307
  11. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-65 70.19 75.tb01393.x
  12. Lee, E. H., & Kim, J. S. (2000). Major effect models of social support and its statistical methods in Korean nursing research. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 30(6), 1503-1520. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2000.30.6.1503
  13. Lim, N. Y., Kim, J. I., Lee, E. N., Lee, K. S., Lee, I., Cho, K. S., et al. (2010). The analysis on published research in the Journal of Muscle and Joint Health. Journal of Muscle and Joint Health, 17(1), 79-88. http://dx.doi. org/ 10.5953/JMJH.2010.17.1.079
  14. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/000 06199-19 8611000-00017
  15. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737-745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
  16. Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  17. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  18. Seong, T. J. (2001). Understanding and application of item response theory. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
  19. Shin, H. S., Hyun, M. S., Ku, M. O., Cho, M. O., Kim, S. Y., Jeong, J. S., et al. (2010). Analysis of research papers published in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing-focused on research trends, intervention studies, and level of evidence in the research. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 40(1), 139-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2010.40.1.139
  20. Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651-657. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1
  21. Watkins, K., & Connell, C. M. (2004). Measurement of health-related QOL in diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics, 22(17), 1109-1126. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422170-00002

Cited by

  1. 옥살리플라틴 유도 말초신경독성 측정도구의 고찰 vol.45, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2015.45.6.783
  2. 소아암 치료 종료 후 청소년의 사회적응 자가 보고 설문지의 측정 속성: 체계적 문헌고찰 vol.24, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2018.24.1.78
  3. Systematic Review of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index used for Measuring Sleep Quality among Adults with Trauma Experiences vol.31, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2019.31.4.337
  4. Reliability and validation of the Korean Compassionate Communication Scale vol.6, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2019-0026
  5. 융합 시대의 의료종사자를 위한 단축형 생명의료윤리 도구 개발 및 평가 vol.18, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.14400/jdc.2020.18.1.219
  6. A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties of Spirituality related Assessment Tools Published in Korean Journals vol.28, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2021.28.1.133