Translation and validation: standard Chinese version of the skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES)

Baojia Luo; Jianying Liu; Weicong Chen; Yonglan Ge; Lei Huang; Zhongying Huang

doi:10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100183

Translation and validation: standard Chinese version of the skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES)

Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2023 Jan 4;10(3):100183. doi: 10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100183. eCollection 2023 Mar.

Authors

Baojia Luo¹, Jianying Liu¹, Weicong Chen², Yonglan Ge¹, Lei Huang³, Zhongying Huang⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
² School of Nursing, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
³ Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
⁴ Nursing Department of Huangpu Yard, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.

Abstract

Objective: Skin tears (STs) are acute cutaneous trauma and have become an increasingly common global health problem. International studies have shown barriers to the prevention and management of ST and the relevance of the role of nurses in implementation. The purpose of this study was to adapt an existing tool to measure nurses' knowledge of the prevention, assessment, and management of STs.

Methods: Skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES) is a knowledge survey tool for skin lacerations developed by Van Tiggelen et al. in 2020. The standard Chinese version of OASES was formed by translating and cross-cultural adaption of source tools following Brislin's translation model, and content validity and translation quality were determined by Delphi method. A psychometric assessment of 341 nurses was then performed to assess item difficulty, discrimination, and quality of response selection in the standard Chinese version of OASES. In addition, construct validity was established by test-retest procedures and known-group techniques.

Results: The standard Chinese version had good content validity and moderate difficulty. It was found that the discrimination was very good: all groups with higher professional level (theoretically expected) scored significantly higher than those with lower professional level (theoretically expected). The stability of the tool was sufficient.

Conclusions: The standard Chinese version of OASES exhibits good psychometric properties and can be used and disseminated to nurses in a Chinese cultural context to assess knowledge about STs. However, it should be noted that the tool was only validated with nurses in cancer hospitals.

Keywords: Cultural adaptation; Knowledge; Nursing; Psychometrics; Reliability; Skin tear; Validity.