一份评估肿瘤学家化疗-药物相互作用知识的综合问卷的开发和心理测量学验证。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Journal of Cancer Education Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1007/s13187-025-02569-3
Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan
{"title":"一份评估肿瘤学家化疗-药物相互作用知识的综合问卷的开发和心理测量学验证。","authors":"Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02569-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chemotherapy-drug interactions (CDIs) pose significant challenges in oncology, affecting treatment efficacy and patient safety. Despite their importance, there is a lack of validated tools to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to address this gap and ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 135 oncologists from various clinical roles in Iraq. The questionnaire included 46 general knowledge and 26 specific knowledge items, developed based on literature and expert consultation. Psychometric validation involved exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (CR), and test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis was applied to evaluate item-level performance. The EFA and CFA identified six distinct domains in the general knowledge section, with strong factor loadings for most items. Items addressing definitions, classifications, and risk factors demonstrated high loadings (e.g., \"Severe chemotherapy-drug interactions often necessitate aggressive monitoring,\" EFA: 0.73, CFA: 0.78). Specific knowledge items also exhibited robust psychometric properties, with high discrimination indices (a > 1.5) and low guessing parameters. Reliability analysis indicated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.8) and stability over time (ICC > 0.75). The questionnaire effectively differentiated respondents based on their knowledge levels and demonstrated good model fit (CFI: 0.93, RMSEA: 0.06). This study developed and validated a reliable and robust questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. The tool provides a standardized method for evaluating CDI knowledge, addressing a critical gap in oncology practice. Future research should focus on applying this questionnaire in diverse contexts and updating it to reflect advancements in clinical guidelines and drug interaction knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":"741-751"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Psychometric Validation of a Comprehensive Questionnaire to Assess Oncologists' Knowledge of Chemotherapy-Drug Interaction.\",\"authors\":\"Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-025-02569-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Chemotherapy-drug interactions (CDIs) pose significant challenges in oncology, affecting treatment efficacy and patient safety. Despite their importance, there is a lack of validated tools to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to address this gap and ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 135 oncologists from various clinical roles in Iraq. The questionnaire included 46 general knowledge and 26 specific knowledge items, developed based on literature and expert consultation. Psychometric validation involved exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (CR), and test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis was applied to evaluate item-level performance. The EFA and CFA identified six distinct domains in the general knowledge section, with strong factor loadings for most items. Items addressing definitions, classifications, and risk factors demonstrated high loadings (e.g., \\\"Severe chemotherapy-drug interactions often necessitate aggressive monitoring,\\\" EFA: 0.73, CFA: 0.78). Specific knowledge items also exhibited robust psychometric properties, with high discrimination indices (a > 1.5) and low guessing parameters. Reliability analysis indicated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.8) and stability over time (ICC > 0.75). The questionnaire effectively differentiated respondents based on their knowledge levels and demonstrated good model fit (CFI: 0.93, RMSEA: 0.06). This study developed and validated a reliable and robust questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. The tool provides a standardized method for evaluating CDI knowledge, addressing a critical gap in oncology practice. Future research should focus on applying this questionnaire in diverse contexts and updating it to reflect advancements in clinical guidelines and drug interaction knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"741-751\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02569-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02569-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

化疗药物相互作用(cdi)是肿瘤学领域的重大挑战,影响着治疗效果和患者安全。尽管它们很重要,但缺乏有效的工具来评估肿瘤学家对cdi的认识。本研究旨在开发和验证一个全面的问卷,以解决这一差距,并确保该工具的可靠性和有效性。一项横断面研究在伊拉克不同临床角色的135名肿瘤学家中进行。问卷包括46项一般知识和26项具体知识,是根据文献资料和专家咨询编制的。心理测量验证包括探索性因子分析(EFA)和验证性因子分析(CFA)来评估结构效度。信度采用Cronbach’s alpha、复合信度(CR)和重测信度采用类内相关系数(ICC)进行评估。采用项目反应理论(IRT)分析评价项目层面的绩效。EFA和CFA在一般知识部分确定了六个不同的领域,大多数项目都有很强的因素负载。涉及定义、分类和风险因素的项目显示出高负荷(例如,“严重的化疗药物相互作用通常需要积极监测,”EFA: 0.73, CFA: 0.78)。特定知识项目也表现出强大的心理测量特征,具有高判别指数(> 1.5)和低猜测参数。信度分析表明具有良好的内部一致性(Cronbach's alpha > 0.8)和时间稳定性(ICC > 0.75)。问卷根据知识水平对被调查者进行了有效的区分,模型拟合良好(CFI: 0.93, RMSEA: 0.06)。本研究开发并验证了一份可靠而有力的问卷来评估肿瘤学家对cdi的了解。该工具提供了一种评估CDI知识的标准化方法,解决了肿瘤学实践中的一个关键空白。未来的研究应侧重于在不同背景下应用该问卷,并对其进行更新,以反映临床指南和药物相互作用知识的进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Psychometric Validation of a Comprehensive Questionnaire to Assess Oncologists' Knowledge of Chemotherapy-Drug Interaction.

Chemotherapy-drug interactions (CDIs) pose significant challenges in oncology, affecting treatment efficacy and patient safety. Despite their importance, there is a lack of validated tools to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to address this gap and ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 135 oncologists from various clinical roles in Iraq. The questionnaire included 46 general knowledge and 26 specific knowledge items, developed based on literature and expert consultation. Psychometric validation involved exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (CR), and test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis was applied to evaluate item-level performance. The EFA and CFA identified six distinct domains in the general knowledge section, with strong factor loadings for most items. Items addressing definitions, classifications, and risk factors demonstrated high loadings (e.g., "Severe chemotherapy-drug interactions often necessitate aggressive monitoring," EFA: 0.73, CFA: 0.78). Specific knowledge items also exhibited robust psychometric properties, with high discrimination indices (a > 1.5) and low guessing parameters. Reliability analysis indicated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.8) and stability over time (ICC > 0.75). The questionnaire effectively differentiated respondents based on their knowledge levels and demonstrated good model fit (CFI: 0.93, RMSEA: 0.06). This study developed and validated a reliable and robust questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. The tool provides a standardized method for evaluating CDI knowledge, addressing a critical gap in oncology practice. Future research should focus on applying this questionnaire in diverse contexts and updating it to reflect advancements in clinical guidelines and drug interaction knowledge.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Education
Journal of Cancer Education 医学-医学:信息
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues. Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care. We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts. Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited. Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants. Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信