Interrater agreement, reliability and validity of the Glamorgan Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale

Jan Kottner, Martina Kenzler and Doris Wilborn

Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2014, vol. 23, issue 7-8, 1165-1169

Abstract: Aims and objectives To determine (1) What is the degree of interrater agreement and reliability of Glamorgan scale item and sum scores? and (2) Are Glamorgan scale sum scores valid? Background Pressure ulcer risk assessment scales are recommended for use in clinical practice. For paediatric patients, 12 instruments are currently described. Empirical evidence about the performance of Glamorgan scale scores in clinical practice is limited. Design An observational validation study was conducted on a paediatric cardiac unit of a large university hospital in Germany in April and May 2010. Methods Children were assessed simultaneously and independently by varying convenience samples of three nurses per assessment situation. Pressure ulcer risk was measured by the Glamorgan scale and a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Proportions of agreement (po), multirater kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated. Results Thirty children were rated by 27 nurses. Median children's age was 5·5 years. Agreement among item scores was high, whereas reliability coefficients of item scores were low. Interrater reliability for the Glamorgan scale sum scores was higher than for VAS scores. Correlation between both scales was moderate. Conclusions High agreement among item scores indicates that nurses are able to make precise judgements. The low interrater reliability of item and sum scores indicates that nurses were unable to differentiate the rated children based on their item and sum scores, thus providing little additional clinical relevant information about pressure ulcer risk in this setting. Relevance to clinical practice The Glamorgan scale and the VAS are unable to make clear distinctions in a low‐risk setting. Therefore, it is unlikely that the tools in this setting provide additional information for clinical decision making. Both tools are not recommended for daily use.

Date: 2014
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12025

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:7-8:p:1165-1169

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Clinical Nursing from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().