4.5 Article

Development, pilot testing and psychometric validation of a short version of the coronary artery disease education questionnaire: The CADE-Q SV

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 99, Issue 3, Pages 443-447

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.11.002

Keywords

Coronary artery disease; Patient education; Health knowledge; Attitudes; Practice; Questionnaires; Psychometric validation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To develop, pilot test and psychometrically validate a shorter version of the coronary artery disease education questionnaire (CADE-Q), called CADE-Q SV. Methods: Based on previous versions of the CADE-Q, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) experts developed 20 items divided into 5 knowledge domains to comprise the first version of the CADE-Q SV. To establish content validity, they were reviewed by an expert panel (N = 12). Refined items were pilot-tested in 20 patients, in which clarity was provided. A final version was generated and psychometrically-tested in 132CR patients. Test-retest reliability was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha, and criterion validity with regard to patients' education and duration in CR. Results: All ICC coefficients meet the minimum recommended standard. All domains were considered internally consistent (alpha > 0.7). Criterion validity was supported by significant differences in mean scores by educational level (p < 0.01) and duration in CR (p < 0.05). Knowledge about exercise and nutrition was higher than knowledge about medical condition. Conclusion: The CADE-Q SV was demonstrated to have good reliability and validity. Practice Implications: This is a short, quick and appropriate tool for application in clinical and research settings, assessing patients' knowledge during CR and as part of education programming. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available