{"title":"Development and validation of a diabetes knowledge questionnaire","authors":"C. Eigenmann, T. Skinner, R. Colagiuri","doi":"10.1002/PDI.1586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An Australian National Consensus Position on Outcomes and Indicators for Diabetes \nEducation identified knowledge and understanding as the outcomes most directly \naffected by diabetes education. A subsequent literature review failed to identify a \nvalidated, suitable questionnaire for measuring knowledge. Consequently, we aimed to \ndevelop a minimum diabetes knowledge questionnaire (DKQ) suitable for people with \nboth type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Content validity was established through literature review, Delphi survey of 52 \nopinion leaders and a workshop of Australian Diabetes Educators (n ≥300). The resulting \ninstrument was tested for internal consistency on 129 and for reliability on 57 people with \ntype 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The final questionnaire contains: 12 multiple choice questions common to type 1 and \ntype 2 diabetes, e.g. normal blood glucose levels, complications, diet, exercise, selfmonitoring \nof blood glucose, annual check-ups, support services, and sick-days; two \nquestions for people on oral medication/insulin only; and one question (sick-days) for \npeople with type 1 diabetes only. For the first 12 questions, the internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α=0.73); \nwith the additional item for type 1 diabetes, the internal consistency was slightly better \n(α=0.79) as it was with the additional items for people on medication/insulin (α=0.76). No \nparticular item seemed to adversely affect the overall consistency of the questionnaire. Comparing test-retest pilots, total scores showed good reliability with no evidence of \nchange over time (t=1.73; df=56; p \n \nThe DKQ is now ready to use for evaluating knowledge outcomes of diabetes \neducation.","PeriodicalId":92116,"journal":{"name":"Practical diabetes international : the journal for diabetes care teams worldwide","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/PDI.1586","citationCount":"58","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical diabetes international : the journal for diabetes care teams worldwide","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/PDI.1586","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 58
Abstract
An Australian National Consensus Position on Outcomes and Indicators for Diabetes
Education identified knowledge and understanding as the outcomes most directly
affected by diabetes education. A subsequent literature review failed to identify a
validated, suitable questionnaire for measuring knowledge. Consequently, we aimed to
develop a minimum diabetes knowledge questionnaire (DKQ) suitable for people with
both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Content validity was established through literature review, Delphi survey of 52
opinion leaders and a workshop of Australian Diabetes Educators (n ≥300). The resulting
instrument was tested for internal consistency on 129 and for reliability on 57 people with
type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The final questionnaire contains: 12 multiple choice questions common to type 1 and
type 2 diabetes, e.g. normal blood glucose levels, complications, diet, exercise, selfmonitoring
of blood glucose, annual check-ups, support services, and sick-days; two
questions for people on oral medication/insulin only; and one question (sick-days) for
people with type 1 diabetes only. For the first 12 questions, the internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α=0.73);
with the additional item for type 1 diabetes, the internal consistency was slightly better
(α=0.79) as it was with the additional items for people on medication/insulin (α=0.76). No
particular item seemed to adversely affect the overall consistency of the questionnaire. Comparing test-retest pilots, total scores showed good reliability with no evidence of
change over time (t=1.73; df=56; p
The DKQ is now ready to use for evaluating knowledge outcomes of diabetes
education.