Medical device-related pressure injury knowledge assessment for nurses: Development and psychometric validation of a multiple choice test

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable test to measure nurses' knowledge of medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs). Methods: The data were collected between May and July 2022. An extensive literature review was performed to develop the instrument. Face and content validity were evaluated in a three-round e-Delphi procedure by an expert panel of 12, including: two wound care nurses; two medical professors; two academic professors/associate professors of nursing with at least 10 years of experience in pressure injuries (PIs) and their care in Turkey; two international professors/ associate professors of nursing who have been involved in the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and other wound care organisations; and nurses from each of four different fields. Results: A sample of 155 nurses and 108 nursing students participated to enable evaluation of the validity of the multiple-choice test items (item difficulty, discriminating index), and to construct validity, internal consistency and stability of the instrument. A 16-item test reflecting six themes was developed to assess MDRPI knowledge (MDRPI-KAT). The item difficulty index of the questions ranged from 0.36-0.84, while values for item discrimination ranged from 0.31-0.68. The one-week test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (stability) was 0.82. The overall internal consistency reliability was 0.77. Group scores of nurses with a (theoretically expected) high level of expertise were found to be statistically significantly higher than those of participants with (theoretically expected) less expertise (p<0.05). Conclusions: The MDRPI-KAT showed acceptable psychometric properties, and can be used in research and practice to evaluate nurses' knowledge of MDRPIs. Declaration of interest: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-forprofit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.