Reliability and validity analysis of the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0)_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Miao ^1,2,3,4,5 , DIAO Sha ^2,3,4,5 , ZENG Linan ^2,3,4,5 , YI Qiusha ^2,3,4,5 , LI Hailong ^2,3,4,5 , CHEN Zhe ^1,2,3,4,5 , HUANG Chao ⁶ ,  WANG Qiang ⁶ ,  ZHANG Lingli ^2,3,4,5,7

1. West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
2. Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
3. Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
4. NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research on Drug Products in Vitro and in Vivo Correlation, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
5. Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Sichuan University, Ministry of Education, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
6. Medical Management Service Guidance Center, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 100044, P. R. China;
7. Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

WANG Qiang, Email: jason2019@sina.cn; ZHANG Lingli, Email: zhanglingli@scu.edu.cn

Keywords：

The instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0); Reliability; Validity

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202209044

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Methods The experts of domestic medical institutions were investigated by questionnaire, and the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) were evaluated the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of tinea mantis and tinea pedis (revised edition 2017) and the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cerebral hemorrhage in China (2019). Using Cronbach's α coefficient and Spearman-Brown coefficient to evaluate the inherent reliability and split-half reliability. The content validity was evaluated by calculating the content validity index of the item level and the adjusted Kappa value. The correlation coefficient between each item and the dimension and the hypothesis test were used to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity. The structural validity was evaluated by using structural equation model to evaluate the structural validity of the tool. Results The Cronbach's α coefficient and Spearman-Brown coefficient of the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) were both greater than 0.7, the content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) were more than 0.8, the success rates of convergent were 100%, and the success rates of discriminant validity calibration were 100% and 96%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ²/ df were less than 3, the fitting index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the adjustment goodness of fit index (AGFI) were all greater than 0.9. The root mean square residual (RMR) were all less than 0.05, and approximate error root mean square (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. The P value of RESEA hypothesis test were more than 0.05. Conclusion The instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) has good reliability and validity, which can be further verified in practical application in the future.

Citation： ZHANG Miao, DIAO Sha, ZENG Linan, YI Qiusha, LI Hailong, CHEN Zhe, HUANG Chao, WANG Qiang, ZHANG Lingli. Reliability and validity analysis of the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(1): 80-84. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202209044 Copy

1.	The ADAPTE collaboration. The ADAPTE process: resource toolkit for guideline adaptation, version 2.0. Available at: https://g-i-n.net/working-groups/adaptation.
2.	曾力楠, 李幼平, 張伶俐, 等. 國內外制訂臨床指南的指南的循證評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016, 16(11): 1322-1330.
3.	林茂, 曾力楠, 李佳蓮, 等. 全球指南臨床適用性評價工具現狀的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2020, 20(4): 437-443.
4.	曾力楠, 易秋莎, 張川, 等. 制訂指南臨床適用性評價工具. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2020, 20(4): 466-475.
5.	李海龍, 張川, 黃超, 等. 指南臨床適用性評價工具信效度分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2020, 20(4): 378-382.
6.	李思雨, 刁莎, 石雨晴, 等. 指南臨床適用性評價工具(2.0版). 中國循證醫學雜志, 2023, DOI:10.7507/1672-2531.202207136.
7.	孫振球, 徐勇勇. 醫學統計學. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2020.
8.	中國醫師協會皮膚科分會, 中華醫學會皮膚病學分會. 手癬和足癬診療指南(2017修訂版). 中國真菌學雜志, 2017, 12(6): 321-324.
9.	中華醫學會神經病學分會, 中華醫學會神經病學分會腦血管病學組. 中國腦出血診治指南(2019). 中華神經科雜志, 2019, 52(12): 994-1005.
10.	Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (5th Edition). New York: Allyn and Bacon, 2007.
11.	鄧晨卉, 劉洋, 張宇, 等. SF-12量表在西部農村青少年中信度及效度評價. 中國公共衛生, 2016, 32(11): 1513-1516.
12.	王山, 樊文潔, 俞婉琦, 等. SF-36量表應用于城市化居民生命質量評價的信度和效度分析. 中華流行病學雜志, 2016, 37(3): 344-347.
13.	邱建青, 周密, 邱培媛, 等. 匹茲堡睡眠質量指數用于農村老年人群的信效度分析. 現代預防醫學, 2016, 43(10): 1835-1838.
14.	史靜琤, 莫顯昆, 孫振球. 量表編制中內容效度指數的應用. 中南大學學報(醫學版), 2012, 37(2): 152-155.
15.	溫忠麟, 侯杰泰, 馬什赫伯特. 結構方程模型檢驗: 擬合指數與卡方準則. 心理學報, 2004, 36(2): 186-194.
16.	李魯, 王紅妹, 沈毅. SF-36健康調查量表中文版的研制及其性能測試. 中華預防醫學雜志, 2002, 36(2): 109-113.
17.	付華鵬, 劉揚, 劉紅波, 等. SF-36健康調查量表應用于城市貧困人群的信度和效度. 中國衛生統計, 2004, 21(2): 109-110.
18.	江梅. 總體相關系數比較的假設檢驗. 中國衛生統計, 2010, 27(1): 83,87.
19.	羅紀聰, 趙景宏, 成瓊, 等. 健康生命量表應用于自動化腹膜透析和持續非臥床腹膜透析患者生命質量評價的信效度研究. 中國血液凈化, 2020, 19(7): 445-448.
20.	Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Development of the AGREE Ⅱ, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ, 2010, 182(10): E472-E478.
21.	Li H, Xie R, Wang Y, et al. A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal. Implement Sci, 2018, 13(1): 61.

1. The ADAPTE collaboration. The ADAPTE process: resource toolkit for guideline adaptation, version 2.0. Available at: https://g-i-n.net/working-groups/adaptation.
2. 曾力楠, 李幼平, 張伶俐, 等. 國內外制訂臨床指南的指南的循證評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016, 16(11): 1322-1330.
3. 林茂, 曾力楠, 李佳蓮, 等. 全球指南臨床適用性評價工具現狀的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2020, 20(4): 437-443.
4. 曾力楠, 易秋莎, 張川, 等. 制訂指南臨床適用性評價工具. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2020, 20(4): 466-475.
5. 李海龍, 張川, 黃超, 等. 指南臨床適用性評價工具信效度分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2020, 20(4): 378-382.
6. 李思雨, 刁莎, 石雨晴, 等. 指南臨床適用性評價工具(2.0版). 中國循證醫學雜志, 2023, DOI:10.7507/1672-2531.202207136.
7. 孫振球, 徐勇勇. 醫學統計學. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2020.
8. 中國醫師協會皮膚科分會, 中華醫學會皮膚病學分會. 手癬和足癬診療指南(2017修訂版). 中國真菌學雜志, 2017, 12(6): 321-324.
9. 中華醫學會神經病學分會, 中華醫學會神經病學分會腦血管病學組. 中國腦出血診治指南(2019). 中華神經科雜志, 2019, 52(12): 994-1005.
10. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (5th Edition). New York: Allyn and Bacon, 2007.
11. 鄧晨卉, 劉洋, 張宇, 等. SF-12量表在西部農村青少年中信度及效度評價. 中國公共衛生, 2016, 32(11): 1513-1516.
12. 王山, 樊文潔, 俞婉琦, 等. SF-36量表應用于城市化居民生命質量評價的信度和效度分析. 中華流行病學雜志, 2016, 37(3): 344-347.
13. 邱建青, 周密, 邱培媛, 等. 匹茲堡睡眠質量指數用于農村老年人群的信效度分析. 現代預防醫學, 2016, 43(10): 1835-1838.
14. 史靜琤, 莫顯昆, 孫振球. 量表編制中內容效度指數的應用. 中南大學學報(醫學版), 2012, 37(2): 152-155.
15. 溫忠麟, 侯杰泰, 馬什赫伯特. 結構方程模型檢驗: 擬合指數與卡方準則. 心理學報, 2004, 36(2): 186-194.
16. 李魯, 王紅妹, 沈毅. SF-36健康調查量表中文版的研制及其性能測試. 中華預防醫學雜志, 2002, 36(2): 109-113.
17. 付華鵬, 劉揚, 劉紅波, 等. SF-36健康調查量表應用于城市貧困人群的信度和效度. 中國衛生統計, 2004, 21(2): 109-110.
18. 江梅. 總體相關系數比較的假設檢驗. 中國衛生統計, 2010, 27(1): 83,87.
19. 羅紀聰, 趙景宏, 成瓊, 等. 健康生命量表應用于自動化腹膜透析和持續非臥床腹膜透析患者生命質量評價的信效度研究. 中國血液凈化, 2020, 19(7): 445-448.
20. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Development of the AGREE Ⅱ, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ, 2010, 182(10): E472-E478.
21. Li H, Xie R, Wang Y, et al. A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal. Implement Sci, 2018, 13(1): 61.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reliability and validity analysis of the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0)

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content