Dataset Information

Anticoagulation Knowledge Tool (AKT): Further evidence of validity in the Italian population.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Oral Anticoagulation therapy (OAC) is highly effective in the management of thromboembolic disorders. An adequate level of knowledge is important for self-management and optimizing clinical outcomes. The Anticoagulation Knowledge Tool (AKT) was developed to assess OAC knowledge and caters for both patients prescribed direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonist (VKA). However, evidence regarding its psychometric proprieties, validity and reliability are unavailable in non-English speaking settings. For this reason, the aim of this study is to provide further evidence of validity for AKT and also developing an Italian AKT version (I-AKT) supported by evidence of validity and reliability.

Methods

A multiphase study was conducted which included the following: cultural and linguistic validity; i.e. content validity; construct validity; reliability assessment. The Construct validity was performed using the contrasted group approach using three groups comprised of health care providers, patients and the general public. Furthermore, Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM) was performed to confirm the mono-dimensional structure of the items in the AKT.

Results

In construct validity phase 334 participants were enrolled. One-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis test demonstrated significant differences between the means knowledge scores of the three groups: 30.42±3.04 vs 23.45± 4.57 vs14.32±6.07 (Statistic F = 266.83; p < .001). ESEM analysis demonstrates the I-AKT mono-dimensionally structure with an explained variance of 56.42%. The scale also showed both good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.896) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.855).

Conclusion

This study developed and validated I-AKT with supporting evidence for validity and reliability. The study also confirms the mono-dimensional of the items in the AKT. This suggest that the instrument can be useful in non-English setting for knowledge assessment and in potentially developing patient education materials.

SUBMITTER: Magon A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6091938 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences. METHODS:Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers. RESULTS:The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS:The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.