Validity and reliability: basic research concepts.

Abstract

Purpose: Valid and reliable heuristic devices facilitating optimal wound care are lacking. The objectives of this study were to establish content validation data for a set of wound care algorithms, to identify their associated strengths and weaknesses, and to gain insight into the wound care decision-making process. Methods: Forty-four registered nurse wound care experts were surveyed and interviewed at national and regional educational meetings. Using a cross-sectional study design and an 83-item, 4-point Likert-type scale, this purposive sample was asked to quantify the degree of validity of the algorithms' decisions and components. Participants' comments were tape-recorded, transcribed, and themes were derived. Results: On a scale of 1 to 4, the mean score of the entire instrument was 3.47 (SD ± 0.87), the instrument's Content Validity Index was 0.86, and the individual Content Validity Index of 34 of 44 participants was > 0.8. Item scores were lower for those related to packing deep wounds (P < .001). No other significant differences were observed. Qualitative data analysis revealed themes of difficulty associated with wound assessment and care issues, that is, the absence of valid and reliable definitions. Conclusion: The wound care algorithms studied proved valid. However, the lack of valid and reliable wound assessment and care definitions hinders optimal use of these instruments. Further research documenting their clinical use is warranted. Research-based practice recommendations should direct the development of future valid and reliable algorithms designed to help nurses provide optimal wound care. (J WOCN 1999;26:238-49)