Assessment of the Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Knowledge Questionnaire (RAKE-T): A Methodological Study

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 50 Sayı: 3, 471 - 477, 12.01.2025

Seda Pehlivan , Öznur Erbay Dallı , Zeynep Yılmaz Bozkurt , Arzu Ceyhan , Yavuz Pehlivan

https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.1576774

Öz

It is important to determine knowledge of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to meet their educational needs. However, there is no updated Turkish questionnaire designed to assess patient knowledge in RA. The aim of the study was to translate the Rheumatoid Arthritis Knowledge Questionnaire (RAKE) into Turkish and assess its psychometric properties. This methodological study was conducted on 233 patients diagnosed with RA who were admitted to the rheumatology outpatient clinic of a university hospital between February 2023 and September 2023. Language validity, content validity, item validity (difficulty and discrimination index), known group validity, test-retest and internal consistency reliability examined the psychometric properties of the scale. The content validity index for RAKE-T was between 0.80-1.00. There was a significant correlation between the total score of the questionnaire and its sub-domains ranging from 0.23 to 0.83. According to the questionnaire's item analysis, the item difficulty ranged from 0.25-0.86 and the discrimination index ranged from 0.27-0.70. Within the known group validity, the knowledge scores were significantly lower in the patient groups with low education, disease duration of less than five years, and patients who did not receive education about their disease (p<0.05). The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the questionnaire were 0.89 and 0.82, respectively. Healthcare professionals can use RAKE-T to assess the level of knowledge of RA patients, design a training plan based on the areas where knowledge deficits are high, and assess the effectiveness of training by using the questionnaire after training.

Anahtar Kelimeler

rheumatoid arthritis, knowledge, validity, reliability

Romatoid Artrit Bilgi Düzeyi Anketi Türkçe Versiyonunun (RAKE-T) Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Metodolojik Bir Çalışma

Öz

Romatoid artritli (RA) hastaların eğitim ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için bilgi düzeylerini belirlemek önemlidir. Ancak, RA hastalarının bilgisini değerlendirmek için tasarlanmış güncel bir Türkçe anket bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı Romatoid Artrit Bilgi Düzeyi Anketi'ni (RAKE-T) Türkçeye çevirmek ve psikometrik özelliklerini değerlendirmektir. Bu metodolojik çalışma, Şubat 2023-Eylül 2023 tarihleri arasında bir üniversite hastanesinin romatoloji polikliniğine başvuran ve RA tanısı alan 233 hasta üzerinde gerçekleştirildi. Ölçeğin psikometrik özellikleri dil geçerliliği, kapsam geçerliliği, madde geçerliliği (güçlük ve ayırt edicilik indeksi), bilinen grup geçerliliği, test-tekrar test ve iç tutarlılık güvenilirliği ile incelendi. RAKE-T için kapsam geçerlilik indeksi 0.80-1.00 arasında saptandı. Anketin toplam puanı ile alt alanları arasında 0.23 ile 0.83 arasında değişen anlamlı bir korelasyon vardı. Anketin madde analizine göre, madde güçlüğü 0.25-0.86 ve ayırt edicilik indeksi 0.27-0.70 arasında değişti. Bilinen grup geçerliliği kapsamında, bilgi düzeyi puanları eğitim düzeyi düşük, hastalık süresi beş yıldan az olan ve hastalığı hakkında eğitim almayan hasta gruplarında anlamlı olarak daha düşüktü (p<0.05). Anketin iç tutarlılığı ve test-tekrar test güvenilirliği sırasıyla 0.89 ve 0.82 olarak saptandı. Sağlık çalışanları RA hastalarının bilgi düzeyini değerlendirmek, bilgi eksikliğinin yüksek olduğu alanlara göre bir eğitim planı tasarlamak ve eğitimden sonra etkinliğini değerlendirmek için RAKE-T'yi kullanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

romatoid artrit, bilgi, geçerlilik, güvenilirlik

Etik Beyan

Onaylayan Kurul: Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu Onay Tarihi: 14.02.2023 Karar No: 2023-3/29

Destekleyen Kurum

Yoktur.

Teşekkür

Araştırmaya katılmayı kabul eden ve destek veren RA hastalarına teşekkür ederiz.

Kaynakça

• 1.Turk MA, Liu Y, Pope JE. Non-pharmacological interventions in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Autoimmun Rev. 2023;22(6):103323.
• 2.Nadrian H, Hosseini Niaz Y, Basiri Z, Tahamoli Roudsari A. Development and psychometric properties of a self-carebehaviors scale (SCBS) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Rheumatol. 2019; 3:4.
• 3.Chen SH, Yu KH, Lee YH, Shao JH. Expectations of anOnline-Self-Management Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Clin Nurs Res. 2022;31(6):1023-1032.
• 4.Naqvi AA, Hassali MA, Aftab MT. Epidemiology ofrheumatoid arthritis, clinical aspects and socio-economic determinants in Pakistani patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;69(3):389-398.
• 5. Ağbuga ÖD, Ersözlü ED. Disease and treatment-related comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis. J Turk Soc Rheumatol. 2024;16(2):64-72.
• 6.Zangi HA, Ndosi M, Adams J et al. EULAR recommendationsfor patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):954-62.
• 7.Jones B, Bennett S, Larsson I et al. Disseminating andassessing implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study with patients' perspectives. RMD Open. 2022;8(1):e002256.
• 8.Hoving C, Visser A, Mullen PD, van den Borne B. A history ofpatient education by health professionals in Europe and North America: from authority to shared decision making education. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:275–281.
• 9.Nagy G, Roodenrijs NMT, Welsing PMJ et al. EULAR pointsto consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(1):20-33.
• 10. Nikiphorou E, Santos EJF, Marques A et al. 2021 EULARrecommendations for the implementation of self-management strategies in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1278-1285.
• 11.Allegrante JP, Wells MT, Peterson JC. Interventions to support behavioral self-management of chronic diseases. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:127-146.
• 12.Rodère M, Pereira B, Soubrier M, et al. Development and validation of a self-administered questionnaire measuring essential knowledge in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42(10):1785-1795.
• 13.Hill J, Bird HA, Hopkins R, Lawton C, Wright V. Thedevelopment and use of Patient Knowledge Questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1991;30(1):45-49.
• 14.Lineker SC, Badley EM, Hughes EA, Bell MJ. Development ofan instrument to measure knowledge in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis: the ACREU rheumatoid arthritis knowledge questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 1997;24(4):647-653.
• 15.Ciciriello S, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Wicks IP. Improvingtreatment with methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis-development of a multimedia patient education program and the MiRAK, a new instrument to evaluate methotrexate-related knowledge. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014;43(4):437-446.
• 16.Fayet F, Savel C, Rodere M, Pereira B et al. The development of a questionnaire to evaluate rheumatoid arthritis patient’s knowledge about methotrexate. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(5–6):682-689.
• 17.Beauvais C, Gaud-Listrat V, Sellam J et al. Patients’ safety skills assessment with biologics and JAK inhibitors: update ofthe BioSecure questionnaire. Jt Bone Spine. 2021;88(5):105215.
• 18.Carneiro AV. Estimating sample size in clinical studies: basic methodological principles. Rev Port Cardiol. 2003;22(12):1513-1521.
• 19.Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-3191.
• 20.Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel ofexperts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194-197.
• 21.Friatma A, Anhar A. Analysis of validity, reliability,discrimination, difficulty and distraction effectiveness in learning assessment. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1387:012063.
• 22.Hingorjo MR, Jaleel F. Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency.J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(2):142-147.
• 23.Souza AC, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EB. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity.Epidemiologia e Servicos de Saude. 2017;26(3):649-659.
• 24.Ekolu S, Quainoo H. Reliability of assessments in engineeringeducation using Cronbach’s alpha, KR and split-half methods. Glob J Eng Educ. 2019;21(1):24-29.
• 25.Guilford JP. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. McGraw-Hill, 1956.
• 26.George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: Asimple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyen & Bacon, 2003.
• 27.Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research (1st ed.). Chapman & Hall, 1991.
• 28.Agca R, Heslinga SC, Rollefstad S et al. EULARrecommendations for cardiovascular disease risk management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other forms ofinflammatory joint disorders: 2015/2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(1):17-28.
• 29.Kamruzzaman AKM, Chowdhury MR, Islam MN et al. Theknowledge level of rheumatoid arthritis patients about their disease in a developing country. A study in 168 Bangladeshi RA patients. Clin Rheumatol. 2020;39(4):1315-1323.