ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2023
[Development and content validity of a questionnaire to assess knowledge about delirium].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving delirium knowledge and recognition confidence in nursing homes through an e-learning program: a pre-post study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Assessing delirium knowledge among health care professionals: findings from a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelirium is a neuropsychiatric syndrome that can have serious consequences and is often overlooked by healthcare professionals. The level of knowledge about delirium is often insufficient among nursing and medical staff. At the current time there is no suitable questionnaire to record the level of knowledge in German-speaking countries.
aimDevelopment of a questionnaire and evaluation of content validity.
methodsFollowing a literature search to identify current best practice, several questionnaires were identified. An already published questionnaire with the dimensions of basic knowledge of delirium and risk factors has been translated, adapted and extended by the dimension of nonpharmacological delirium prevention. Delirium experts assessed the relevance of the questionnaire items in two rounds of reviews. Content validity was calculated using the Content Validity Index (CVI) at item (I-CVI) and scale (S-CVI) level. Additionally, the modified Kappa (k*) was calculated using a lower 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThe original 30-item questionnaire was expanded to include 18 delirium prevention items. After the first round of scoring 30 out of 48 items showed good to excellent I‑CVI scores. Considering the comments, 6 items were discarded and 12 were adapted in terms of language and content. In the final version of the questionnaire 41 items with excellent scores remained. The total scale score increased from 0.88 in the first version to 1.0 in the final version. Nurses were identified as the target group, potentially also therapists and medical personnel.
conclusionThe delirium knowledge questionnaire is content-valid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.