Construct validity and reliability of the Concussion Knowledge Assessment Tool (CKAT).

Q3 Health Professions
Mitchell Savic, Mohsen Kazemi, Alexander Lee, David Starmer, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
{"title":"Construct validity and reliability of the Concussion Knowledge Assessment Tool (CKAT).","authors":"Mitchell Savic,&nbsp;Mohsen Kazemi,&nbsp;Alexander Lee,&nbsp;David Starmer,&nbsp;Sheilah Hogg-Johnson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the concussion knowledge assessment tool (CKAT) as a measure of knowledge of concussion and its management among chiropractic subgroups and to compare these properties for two scoring strategies for the CKAT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three chiropractic subgroups (first year students, interns and sports chiropractors) completed the CKAT via SurveyMonkey with as second administration two to six weeks later for a subset of respondents. Scatter plots and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used for test-retest reliability. A priori hypotheses regarding the relationship of CKAT scores across known subgroups, and with concussion knowledge self-rankings were established prior to data collection. Distributions of CKAT scores were compared across the subgroups using boxplots and ANOVA for known groups validity, and correlation of CKAT scores with concussion knowledge self-ranking was examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Test-retest ICC for the revised scoring was 0.68 (95%CI 0.51-0.80). First year students had a mean revised CKAT (out of 49) of 36.9 (SD= 4.7), interns 39.9 (SD=3.0) and sports chiropractors 41.8 (SD=3.2) which are significantly different (F<sub>2,125</sub>=17.54; p<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CKAT distinguished between chiropractic subgroups expected to have different levels of knowledge, supporting construct validity, however, it did not achieve adequate test-retest reliability.</p>","PeriodicalId":38036,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7815174/pdf/jcca-64-201.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the concussion knowledge assessment tool (CKAT) as a measure of knowledge of concussion and its management among chiropractic subgroups and to compare these properties for two scoring strategies for the CKAT.

Methods: Three chiropractic subgroups (first year students, interns and sports chiropractors) completed the CKAT via SurveyMonkey with as second administration two to six weeks later for a subset of respondents. Scatter plots and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used for test-retest reliability. A priori hypotheses regarding the relationship of CKAT scores across known subgroups, and with concussion knowledge self-rankings were established prior to data collection. Distributions of CKAT scores were compared across the subgroups using boxplots and ANOVA for known groups validity, and correlation of CKAT scores with concussion knowledge self-ranking was examined.

Results: Test-retest ICC for the revised scoring was 0.68 (95%CI 0.51-0.80). First year students had a mean revised CKAT (out of 49) of 36.9 (SD= 4.7), interns 39.9 (SD=3.0) and sports chiropractors 41.8 (SD=3.2) which are significantly different (F2,125=17.54; p<0.0001).

Conclusions: The CKAT distinguished between chiropractic subgroups expected to have different levels of knowledge, supporting construct validity, however, it did not achieve adequate test-retest reliability.

构建脑震荡知识评估工具(CKAT)的效度和信度。
目的:评价震荡知识评估工具(CKAT)作为衡量捏脊亚组震荡知识及其管理的测试重测信度和构建效度,并比较两种CKAT评分策略的这些特性。方法:三个捏脊亚组(一年级学生、实习生和运动捏脊医生)通过SurveyMonkey完成CKAT,并在2至6周后对一部分受访者进行第二次治疗。散点图和类内相关系数(ICC)用于重测信度。在数据收集之前,建立了关于CKAT分数在已知亚组之间的关系以及与脑震荡知识自我排名的先验假设。采用箱形图和方差分析比较CKAT得分在各亚组间的分布,并检验CKAT得分与脑震荡知识自我排名的相关性。结果:修订后评分的重测ICC为0.68 (95%CI 0.51-0.80)。一年级学生(共49人)的修正CKAT平均值为36.9 (SD= 4.7),实习生为39.9 (SD=3.0),运动脊医为41.8 (SD=3.2),差异有统计学意义(f2125 =17.54;结论:CKAT在不同知识水平的捏脊亚组之间有显著差异,支持构念效度,但未达到足够的重测信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association
Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association Health Professions-Chiropractics
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association (JCCA) publishes research papers, commentaries and editorials relevant to the practice of chiropractic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信