IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i7-8p1165-1169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interrater agreement, reliability and validity of the Glamorgan Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Kottner
  • Martina Kenzler
  • Doris Wilborn

Abstract

Aims and objectives To determine (1) What is the degree of interrater agreement and reliability of Glamorgan scale item and sum scores? and (2) Are Glamorgan scale sum scores valid? Background Pressure ulcer risk assessment scales are recommended for use in clinical practice. For paediatric patients, 12 instruments are currently described. Empirical evidence about the performance of Glamorgan scale scores in clinical practice is limited. Design An observational validation study was conducted on a paediatric cardiac unit of a large university hospital in Germany in April and May 2010. Methods Children were assessed simultaneously and independently by varying convenience samples of three nurses per assessment situation. Pressure ulcer risk was measured by the Glamorgan scale and a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Proportions of agreement (po), multirater kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated. Results Thirty children were rated by 27 nurses. Median children's age was 5·5 years. Agreement among item scores was high, whereas reliability coefficients of item scores were low. Interrater reliability for the Glamorgan scale sum scores was higher than for VAS scores. Correlation between both scales was moderate. Conclusions High agreement among item scores indicates that nurses are able to make precise judgements. The low interrater reliability of item and sum scores indicates that nurses were unable to differentiate the rated children based on their item and sum scores, thus providing little additional clinical relevant information about pressure ulcer risk in this setting. Relevance to clinical practice The Glamorgan scale and the VAS are unable to make clear distinctions in a low‐risk setting. Therefore, it is unlikely that the tools in this setting provide additional information for clinical decision making. Both tools are not recommended for daily use.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Kottner & Martina Kenzler & Doris Wilborn, 2014. "Interrater agreement, reliability and validity of the Glamorgan Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(7-8), pages 1165-1169, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:7-8:p:1165-1169
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12025
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:7-8:p:1165-1169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.