• J Clin Nurs · Apr 2014

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

    • Jan Kottner, Martina Kenzler, and Doris Wilborn.
    • Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
    • J Clin Nurs. 2014 Apr 1; 23 (7-8): 1165-9.

    Aims And ObjectivesTo 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?BackgroundPressure 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.DesignAn observational validation study was conducted on a paediatric cardiac unit of a large university hospital in Germany in April and May 2010.MethodsChildren 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.ResultsThirty 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.ConclusionsHigh 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 PracticeThe 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.© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.