4.4 Article

Turkish translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and assessment of psychometric properties of the Ottawa sitting scale for the intensive care unit survivors

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 44, 期 23, 页码 7304-7311

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1983040

关键词

Balance; Critical care; Functional status; Reliability; Sitting position; Turkish; Validity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Turkish version of the OSS has been shown to have good reliability and validity in assessing sitting balance in ICU survivors. The OSS score is correlated with scores on the BBS and FIM.
Purpose To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Ottawa Sitting Scale (OSS) developed for acute care patients into Turkish and to examine its psychometric properties in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Methods After translation process the Turkish version of the scale was adminstered to eighty-one patients aged 39-82 years after discharge from the ICU and videotape was recorded. Two physiotherapists watched the videotaped records during the evaluation and scored. Test-retest reliability was assesed by scoring the same video recordings 15 days after the initial scoring. Correlations of the OSS with Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Functional Independence Measurement (FIM), the ICU length of stay and, total mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for convergent validity. Results The intra-class correlation coefficient for inter and intra-rater reliability was 0.989-0.994 and 0.998 respectively. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.998). The OSS score was highly correlated with the BBS total score (r = 0.716), the BBS unsupported sitting item score (r = 0.863), and moderately correlated with the total score of the FIM (r = 0.602), the number of days in ICU (r= -0.545), and total mechanical ventilation duration (r = -0.518). Conclusion The Turkish version of OSS has been found to be valid and reliable in assessment of sitting balance in patients discharged from intensive care unit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据