ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Linguistic and Cultural Validation of the Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes Scale (DRKA) in a Chinese Population.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To linguistically and culturally adapt the 31-item Singaporean Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes (DRKA) questionnaire for a Chinese population and assess its reliability and validity using classical and modern psychometric theory. Methods: A total of 230 patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) were recruited, and of these, 202 valid responses were analyzed. Rasch analysis and classical test theory (CTT) methods were used to analyze the fit statistics of the Knowledge (n = 22 items) and Attitudes (n = 9 items) scales, including the functionality of the response categories, fit statistics, person and item reliability and separation, unidimensionality, targeting, differential item functioning (DIF), internal consistency, convergent validity, and known-group validity. Results: After revision, both the Knowledge and Attitudes scales were unidimensional and had good measurement precision (Person Separation Index = 2.18 and 1.72) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.83 and 0.82). While the items in the Knowledge scale aptly targeted participants' ability level, targeting of the Attitudes scale was slightly suboptimal, with items too easy on average for participants' ability level. There were no issues with DIF and item fit, and the scales showed good known-group validity (scores increased as education level increased) and convergent validity (high correlation with the DRKA Practice questionnaire). Conclusions: After a thorough language and cultural verification process, the Chinese version of the DRKA is culturally appropriate and has good psychometric performance. Translational Relevance: The DRKA questionnaire may be useful to assess patients' DR-related knowledge and attitude level, as well as inform specific education interventions and optimize patients' ability to manage their condition.
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.