SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Test-Retest Reliability and External Validity of Canadian Diabetes Risk Questionnaire - Turkish

Gamze EKİCİ
Orkun ARAN
Serkan PEKÇETİN
Berkay EKİCİ
Pages
188–198
Publication Date
2023-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Its external validity was evaluated by examining its correlation with NHP, and it was found that there was a statistically significant, positive weak correlation (p<0.05, r= 0.23).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine the test-retest reliability and external validity of the Canadian Diabetes Risk Questionnaire (CanRisk).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Individuals over 40 years of age without any disease were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Its external validity was evaluated by examining its correlation with NHP, and it was found that there was a statistically significant, positive weak correlation (p<0.05, r= 0.23).
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Diabetes Mellitus · Reliability · Validity

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine the test-retest reliability and external validity of the Canadian Diabetes Risk Questionnaire (CanRisk). Materials and Methods: Individuals over 40 years of age without any disease were included in the study. Participants were administered the CanRisk, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). CanRisk test-retest validity was calculated with the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and external validity was calculated with the Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: The study included 1349 participants, 549 men and 755 women (mean age 50.03 ± 8.05 years). CanRisk test-retest validity was found to be excellent (0.99). Its external validity was evaluated by examining its correlation with NHP, and it was found that there was a statistically significant, positive weak correlation (p<0.05, r= 0.23). Conclusion: CanRisk -TR was found to be a reliable and valid questionnaire to predict diabetes risk.

🔖

Cite This Article

EKİCİ, G., ARAN, O., PEKÇETİN, S., EKİCİ, B. (2023). Test-Retest Reliability and External Validity of Canadian Diabetes Risk Questionnaire - Turkish. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 188–198. https://ajindex.com/articles/929324

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(3), 91-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
  2. Alghwiri, A., Alghadir, A., & Awad, H. (2014). The Arab Risk (ARABRISK): translation and validation. Biomed Res, 25, 271-275.
  3. American Diabetes Association. (2021). Standards of medical care in diabetes—2021 abridged for primary care providers. Clinical diabetes: a publication of the American Diabetes Association, 39(1), 14. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
  4. Dall, T. M., Yang, W., Halder, P., Pang, B., Massoudi, M., Wintfeld, N., et al. (2014). The economic burden of elevated blood glucose levels in 2012: diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, and prediabetes. Diabetes care, 37(12), 3172-3179.
  5. Demirağ, H. E. (2016). Tip-2 diabetes mellituslu hastaların birinci derece yakınlarında diyabet risk değerlendirmesi Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü]. Guo, J., Shi, Z., Chen, J. L., Dixon, J. K., Wiley, J., & Parry, M. (2018). Translation and validation of the Canadian diabetes risk assessment questionnaire in China. Public Health Nursing, 35(1), 18-28.
  6. Hunt, S. M., McKenna, S., McEwen, J., Williams, J., & Papp, E. (1981). The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Social Science & Medicine. Part A: Medical Psychology & Medical Sociology, 15(3), 221-229.
  7. International Diabetes Federation. (2015). IDF diabetes atlas. Int. Diabetes Fed. Kücükdeveci, A., McKenna, S., Kutlay, S., Gürsel, Y., Whalley, D., & Arasil, T. (2000). The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation, 23(1), 31-38.
  8. Lindstrom, J., & Tuomilehto, J. (2003). The diabetes risk score: a practical tool to predict type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes care, 26(3), 725-731.
  9. Lourenço, I. M., Rêgo, A. S., Diniz, J. G., Bena, M. G. P., Moreira, W. d. S. B., Ferreira, P. R., Soares, et al. (2021). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Canadian Diabetes Risk Questionnaire for the Brazilian population. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 67, 1810-1815.
  10. Oğuz, A. (2018). The Prospective Urban Rural Epid