美国创伤急诊评估工具的汉化及信效度检验

doi:10.20047/j.issn1673-7210.2023.20.15

摘要
图/表
参考文献(25)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (530 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的分析汉化版美国通用创伤急诊评估工具（GETAC）在我国单中心运用的信效度。方法抽取北京积水潭医院2020年1月至6月153例急诊创伤患者，利用汉化版GETAC对患者进行回顾性分析。评价指标包括评定者信度、重测信度、内容效度、结构效度。信度分析采用Pearson相关性检验，效度分析采用探索性因子分析。结果 GETAC的评定者间信度为0.900，重测信度Ⅰ级条目Pearson系数均值为0.818，总分Pearson相关性系数为0.881；Ⅱ级条目Pearson系数均值为0.954，总分Pearson系数为0.828。GETAC单个条目内容效度指数（I-CVI）为0.857～1.000，各个条目I-CVI均＞0.780，总条目内容效度指数（S-CVI）为0.916。因子分析共提取8个公因子，累计贡献率为65.63%；各个条目在相应公因子上的因子负荷均＞0.4。结论 GETAC具有良好的信效度，可适用于我国创伤急诊早期对患者的评估。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	金晔　　张玉勤　　王陶　　张春琰

关键词 ：创伤, 急诊, 评估工具, 信度, 效度

Abstract：Objective To analyze the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of generalized emergency trauma assessment criteria of America (GETAC) in single centers in China. Methods A total of 153 emergency trauma patients from Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from January to June 2020 were selected for retrospective analysis using the Chinese version of GETAC. The evaluation index includes evaluator reliability, retest reliability, content validity, and structure validity. Pearson correlation test was used for reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis was used for validity analysis. Results The inter-rater reliability of GETAC was 0.900, the mean Pearson coefficient of Grade Ⅰ retest reliability items was 0.818, and the total Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.881. The mean Pearson coefficient of GradeⅡitems was 0.954, and the total Pearson coefficient was 0.828. The single item content validity index (I-CVI) of GETAC was 0.857 to 1.000, the I-CVI of each item was ＞0.780, and the scale content validity index was 0.916. A total of eight common factors were extracted by factor analysis, and the cumulative contribution rate was 65.63%. The factor load of each item on the corresponding common factor was ＞0.4. Conclusion GETAC has good reliability and validity, which can be applied to the early evaluation of patients in trauma emergency department in China.

Key words： Trauma Emergency Evaluative tool Reliability Validity

基金资助:北京市属医院科研培育计划项目（PG2021008）。

引用本文:

金晔　　张玉勤　　王陶　　张春琰. 美国创伤急诊评估工具的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 中国医药导报, 2023, 20(23): 73-76.
JIN Ye ZHANG Yuqin WANG Tao ZHANG Chunyan. Sinicization and validation of emergency trauma assessment tools in the United States. 中国医药导报, 2023, 20(23): 73-76.

链接本文:

https://www.yiyaodaobao.com.cn/CN/10.20047/j.issn1673-7210.2023.20.15 或 https://www.yiyaodaobao.com.cn/CN/Y2023/V20/I23/73

[1] Soni KD，Bansal V，Arora H，et al. The State of Global Trauma and Acute Care Surgery/Surgical Critical Care [J]. Crit Care Clin，2022，38（4）：695-706.
[2] 许晨阳.国家卫生健康委员会：全国已建成500余个县级创伤救治中心创伤死亡率下降40%[N/OL].http：//news.cnr. cn/native/gd/20190620/t20190620_524657300.shtml，2019- 06-20.
[3] 仲伟喜，朱晓光，杨开超，等.国际标准化比率与创伤患者预后的相关性研究[J].中国急救医学，2016，36（5）：419-423.
[4] 中华人民共和国国家统计局.中国统计年鉴（2020）[M].北京：中国统计出版社，2020.
[5] Gondek S，Schroeder ME，Sarani B. Assessment and Resuscitation in TraumaManagement [J]. Surg Clin North Am，2017， 97（5）：985-998.
[6] 郭继萍.急性创伤患者应用急诊分级护理的价值评估[J].基层医学论坛，2018，22（12）：1716-1717.
[7] 姜钰，吴新宝.我国创伤流行病学的现状与未来[J].中华创伤骨科杂志，2014，16（2）：165-168.
[8] 陶雪江.不同评估工具对创伤转运患者病情评估的应用进展[J].检验医学与临床，2020，17（20）：3050-3053.
[9] Bang M，Kim YW，Kim OH，et al. Validation of the Korean criteria for trauma team activation [J]. Clin Exp Emerg Med，2018，5（4）：256-263.
[10] Romero PR，Castro DR，Turégano FF，et al. Prehospital triage for mass casualty incidents using the META method for early surgical assessment：retrospective validation of a hospital trauma registry [J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg，2020， 46（2）：425-433.
[11] 万崇华.生命质量研究中一些重要问题的探讨[J].中国行为医学科学，1999，8（2）：155-156.
[12] 韩敏，吕丹，李茵，等.中文版丹佛急诊创伤器官衰竭量表的信效度分析[J].中国实用护理杂志，2018，34（6）：445-449.
[13] Gangeri L，Alfieri S，Greco M，et al. Construction process and development stages of pandemic emotions questionnaire in cancer patients （PEQ-CP） [J]. BMC Psychol，2022，10（1）：226.
[14] Ubels J，Hernandez-Villafuerte K，Schlander M. The Value of Freedom：A Review of the Current Developments and Conceptual Issues in the Measurement of Capability [J]. J Human Dev Capabil，2022，23（3）：327-353.
[15] 吴迪，张燕，梁会，等.牙周炎患者口腔保健自我效能量表的汉化及信效度评价[J].中华护理杂志，2015，50（6）： 758-762.
[16] 陈香萍，庄一渝，乔丽杰，等.跨专业团队合作量表的汉化和信效度检验[J].中国实用护理杂志，2019，35（8）：572-578.
[17] Engel R，McAviney J，Graham PL，et al. Novel Screening Tool for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis：A Reliability Study [J]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther，2022，30：S0161-4754（22）00114-2.
[18] Romero-Gallardo L，Roldan RO，Castro-Pi?觡ero J，et al. Assessment of physical fitness during pregnancy：validity and reliability of fitness tests，and relationship with maternal and neonatal health - a systematic review [J]. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med，2022，8（3）：e001318.
[19] Meneses E，Boneva D，McKenney M，et al. Massive transfusion protocol in adult trauma population [J]. Am J Emerg Med，2020，38（12）：2661-2666.
[20] Timon C，Lee M，Feeley I，et al. Recording adverse events following orthopaedic trauma：Financial implications and validation of an adverse event assessment form in an Irish regional trauma unit [J]. Injury，2022，54（2）：508-512.
[21] Marlor DR，Taghlabi KM，Hierl AN，et al. In-hospital，30- and 90-day mortality in elderly trauma patients with operative feeding tubes [J]. Am J Surg，2022，215（4）：758-763.
[22] Atkins EV，Vaughn KA，Medeiros RS，et al. Assessing Trauma Readiness Costs in Level Ⅲ and Level Ⅳ Trauma Centers [J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg，2023，94（2）：258-263.
[23] Bento A，Ferreira L，Yánez Benitez C，et al. Worldwide snapshot of trauma team structure and training：an international survey [J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg，2022.
[24] 张鹏，杜哲，刘中砥，等.我国医生对严重创伤评估能力的多中心调查[J].中华急诊医学杂志，2021，30（5）：533- 536.
[25] 陈珍.CRAMS创伤评估对老年创伤患者院前急救护理效果的影响[J].中国研究型医院，2022，9（3）：46-49.