Dataset Information

Developing the Korean Educational Needs Assessment Tool (Korean ENAT) in rheumatoid arthritis: cross-cultural validation using Rasch analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

This study was performed to undertake cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for use in Korea.

Methods

The study involved two main phases: cross-cultural adaptation of the ENAT from English into Korean, and validation of the Korean ENAT. The first phase followed the established process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures, and in the second phase, the Korean ENAT data were analyzed using the Rasch measurement model. Fit to the model was determined using the observed data infit and outfit statistics. Additional tests of validity included unidimensionality and internal consistency.

Results

Adequate conceptual equivalence was achieved following the adaptation process. A total of 123 patients completed the Korean ENAT. The mean age was 46.7 ± 12.3 years and the majority of patients (81.3%) were female. Thirty-five of the 39 items gave good fit to the model. The four items deviating from the model had infit and outfit > 1.50. The item separation index (5.26) and item reliability index (0.97) provided evidence for good reliability of items. All seven domains of the Korean ENAT fit the Rasch model. The internal consistency of the Korean ENAT was high, and unidimensionality was confirmed (person separation index, 3.41; reliability index, 0.92; item separation index, 16.82; reliability index, 1.00).

Conclusion

Using the standard procedure for cross-cultural adaptation, the ENAT has been adapted into Korean, and Rasch analysis has confirmed the construct validity, reliability, and unidimensionality of the Korean ENAT.

SUBMITTER: Sung YK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273824 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAs the therapeutic landscape for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continues to change, it is relevant to examine current treatment patterns among rheumatologists. The purpose of this study was to identify attitudes and practices of US rheumatologists with respect to RA.MethodsNine-hundred and one US-practicing rheumatologists were sent electronic invites (via email or fax) to participate in a case-vignette survey in April 2013. All respondents were currently practicing rheumatology and seeing at least one RA patient per week. The survey examined current attitudes, existing knowledge, management choices and perceived barriers in the management of RA. Data collection stopped once 125 responses were received.ResultsApproximately half of the 125 respondents were very familiar with current clinical practice guidelines for RA diagnosis and management. There was no consensus on which validated tools to use when assessing RA severity, with 54% using Physician Global Assessment and 34% using Disease Activity Score 28 at initial assessment. Most respondents (74%) used methotrexate (MTX) as initial therapy for a newly diagnosed RA patient. Eighty-six percent of respondents would add a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) when MTX alone could not control RA. There was no consensus on which treatment should be used when a TNFi is ineffective. The majority of respondents (66% of respondents) would prescribe TNFis indefinitely in patients with continued response. If a patient was in stable remission on MTX and a TNFi, respondents were most likely to maintain this regimen (53% of respondents); a notable minority (43%) would lower the MTX dose. When prescribing biologics, respondents were most concerned with infection; infection was considered a very significant barrier to biologic use. Although 98% of respondents indicated that they personally educate patients about RA, only 42% provide written material.ConclusionsThe lack of consistency in responses suggests that rheumatologists may benefit from continuing medical education on; clinical practice guidelines; the most recent evidence for management of patients in remission; the use of biologic agents after infection; and management of patients with RA and comorbidities.