Development and evaluation of cardiac implantable electronic devices knowledge scale

• Published in: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology Vol. 46; no. 5; pp. 376 - 384
• Main Authors: Erunal, Merve, Mert, Hatice
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.05.2023
• Subjects: cardiac implantable electronic devices; Correlation analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Education; Electronic equipment; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Heart; Humans; instrument development; Knowledge; Literature reviews; patients’ knowledge; Psychometrics; reliability; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires; Validity; instrument development; cardiac implantable electronic devices; validity; patients’ knowledge; reliability; 43
• ISSN: 0147-8389; 1540-8159
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14692

Background Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) need specific education to successfully adapt to life with new devices in their bodies. This requires specifically‐tailored training processes. To determine the educational requirements, robust measurement tools are essential; however, a literature review revealed that no reliable and valid knowledge scale currently exists for patients with CIEDs. Objective The study was conducted to develop and test the psychometric properties of the scale for measuring the knowledge of patients with CIEDs. Methods The cross‐sectional and descriptive study was conducted with 150 patients with CIEDs. Data were collected with a specially‐developed cardiac implantable electronic devices knowledge (CIEDsK) Scale consisting of 14 questions. To determine the reliability of the scale, the following tests were performed: Kuder Richardson‐20 reliability coefficient, intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis, and corrected item‐total scale correlation analyses. The content validity, predictive validity, and item discrimination index were examined to evaluate the validity of the scale. Results The Kuder Richardson‐20 reliability coefficient indicated very good internal consistency (.92). ICC was .92, demonstrating excellent reliability. Four questions were removed after failing to meet the inclusion criteria for the content validity index (<0.70), the discrimination index (<0.10), and item‐total correlation (<0.20). Predictive validity analyses showed that the following were effective in predicting the total score: age, income status, implantation length, and informed by a healthcare professional, however, education level was not. After all analyses, 10 multiple‐choice questions remained in the final scale about living with CIEDs. Conclusion The study showed that the CIEDsK scale is valid and reliable for measuring the knowledge of patients with CIEDs in daily practice. Thus, patient‐tailored education sessions can be designed according to the knowledge level of the patients determined.