skip to main content

The Content Validity and Interrater Reliability of Nursing Outcome Classification Self-Care for Toileting among Children with Physical Disabilities

Yogi Hasna Meisyarah  -  School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
*Sri Hartini orcid scopus  -  Department of Pediatric and Maternity Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Fitri Haryanti scopus  -  Department of Pediatric and Maternity Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2021 Nurse Media Journal of Nursing
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Background: Nursing Outcome Classification (NOC) Self-care for Toileting is an instrument for measuring the abilities of toileting self-care among children with physical disabilities. However, there has been no cultural adaptation in the Indonesian context, especially among children with physical disabilities, so that the validity and inter-rater reliability of the instrument has not been reported. Testing the content validity and interrater reliability of this instrument is necessary so that it could be used to measure the ability of toileting self-care.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the content validity and inter-rater reliability of NOC Self-care for Toileting among children with physical disabilities.

Methods: This was a descriptive quantitative non-experimental research with a cross-sectional design. In the content validity test, this study employed seven experts teaching in nursing academies with a minimum degree of S2/specialist and had the experiences in basic nursing to assess the validity of NOC Self-care for Toileting. As for the inter-rater reliability test, this study involved two raters of nursing students who have passed block 2.4 lecture on “Growth and Development” and 36 children with physical disabilities at a Special School in Bantul, Yogyakarta. The validity test was analyzed using CVR, CVI, and Aiken’s V indexes, while the inter-rater reliability test was analyzed using Kappa and percent agreement.

Results: The validity test showed the CVR value range of 0.71-1.00, the CVI value of 0.91, and the V coefficient range of 0.86-1.00. In the inter-rater reliability test, the Kappa value obtained was 0.958, and the percent agreement value was 97.22% for all indicators of NOC Self-care for Toileting.

Conclusion: NOC Self-care for Toileting is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the abilities of toileting self-care among children aged 6-18 with mild to moderate degrees of physical disabilities. Further research can be conducted by involving different respondents and cultures with more than two raters if possible.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: NOC; physical disabilities; validity; inter-rater reliability; toileting self-care
Funding: -

Article Metrics:

  1. Almeida, M. d. A., Seganfredo, D. H., & Unicovsky, M. R. (2010). Nursing outcome indicator validation for patients with orthopedic problems. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 44(4), 1059-1064. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342010000400029
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2012). Toilet training children with special needs. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/toddler/toilet-training/Pages/ Toilet-Training-Children-with-Special-Needs.aspx
  3. Asaad, A. S. (2004). Measurement and evaluation: Concepts and principles. FEX Book Store
  4. Aslett, H. J. (2006). Reducing variability, increasing reliability: Exploring the psychology of intra- and inter-rater reliability. Investigation on University Teaching and Learning, 4(I), 86-91. http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/id/eprint/222
  5. Burns, M. K. (2014). How to establish interrater reliability. Nursing, 44(10), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000453705.41413.c6
  6. Cohen, J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  7. da Silva, N. C. M., de Souza Oliveira, A. R., & de Carvalho, E. C. (2015). Knowledge produced from the outcomes of the “Nursing Outcomes Classification--NOC”: Integrative review. Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem/EENFUFRGS, 36(4), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2015.04.53339
  8. Department of Education, Youth, and Sports. (2018). Data individu sekolah dan data siswa tingkat pendidikan dasar TK-SMA sekolah luar biasa tahun 2017-2018. [Individual school data and student data for Kindergarten-High School special education levels 2017-2018]. Department of Education, Youth, and Sports Yogyakarta
  9. Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting of teacher and principal (Issue February). US Department of Education: Center for Educator Compensation Reform
  10. Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. Mc Graw-Hill Kogakusha
  11. Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of interrater reliability (4th Ed). Advanced Analytics
  12. Hadzaman, N. A. H., Takim, R., Nawawi, A. H., & Mohamad Yusuwan, N. (2018). Content validity of governing in Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation assessment instrument. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 140(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/140/1/012105
  13. Hayati, S., & Lailatussaadah. (2016). Instrumen validity and reliability. [Validity and reliability of instrument]. Didaktika, 16(2), 169–179
  14. Head, B. J., Maas, M., & Johnson, M. (2003). Validity and community-health-nursing sensitivity of six outcomes for community health nursing with older clients. Public Health Nursing, 20(5), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446.2003.20507.x
  15. Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence- Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129
  16. Jones, P. S., Lee, J. W., Philips, L. R., Zhang, X. E., & Jaceldo K. B. (2001). An adaptation of Brislin’s Translation Model for cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 50(5):303-304. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200109000-00008
  17. Kane, A. E., Hilmer, S. N., Huizer-Pajkos, A., Mach, J., Nines, D., Boyer, D., Gavin, K., Mitchell, S. J., & De Cabo, R. (2015). Factors that impact on interrater reliability of the mouse clinical frailty index. Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 70(6), 694–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv032
  18. Keenan, G., Stocker, J., Barkauskas, V., Johnson, M., Maas, M., Moorhead, S., & Reed, D. (2003). Assessing the reliability, validity, and sensitivity of nursing outcomes classification in home care settings. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1891/jnum.11.2.135.57285
  19. Khasanah, U., Nurjannah, I., & Harjanto, T. (2018). Interrater reliability dari nursing outcome classification perawatan diri eliminasi pada pasien stroke dengan diagnosis keperawatan defisit perawatan diri eliminasi. [Interrater reliability of nursing outcome classification for elimination self-care in stroke patients with a nursing diagnosis of elimination self-care deficit] (Bachelor’s Thesis). Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  20. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  21. Lee, B. (2007). Identifying outcomes from the nursing outcomes classification as indicators of quality of care in Korea: A modified delphi study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 1021-1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.016
  22. Lee, C. C., Li, D., Arai, S., & Puntillo, K. (2009). Ensuring cross-cultural equivalence in translation of research consents and clinical documents: A systematic process for translating English to Chinese. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 20(1), 77–82. doi: 10.1177/1043659608325852
  23. Ljungberg, A. K., Fossum, B., Fürst, C. J., & Hagelin, C. L. (2015). Translation and cultural adaptation of research instruments-guidelines and challenges: An example in FAMCARE-2 for use in Sweden. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 40(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2013.872111
  24. Macias, M. M., Roberts, K. M., Saylor, C. F., & Fussell, J. J. (2006). Toileting concerns, parenting stress, and behavior problems in children with special health care needs. Clinical Pediatrics, 12, 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922806289 616
  25. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Lessons in biostatistics interrater reliability: The Kappa statistic. Biochemica Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://hrcak.srce.hr/89395
  26. Meisyarah, Y. H., Hartini, S., & Haryanti, F. (2019). Validitas dan interrater reliability dari Nursing Outcome Classification (NOC) perawatan diri toileting pada anak disabilitas fisik di SLB Negeri 1 Bantul. [Validity and interrater reliability of Nursing Outcome Classification (NOC) toileting self-care for children with physical disabilities at SLB Negeri 1 Bantul]. (Bachelor’s Thesis). Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  27. Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia. (2018). Hasil utama Riskesdas 2018 [Main results of Riskesdas 2018]. http://kesmas.kemkes.go.id/assets/upload/dir_519d41d8cd98f00/files/Hasil riskesdas-2018_1274.pdf
  28. Moorhead, S., Johnson, M., Maas, M. L., & Swanson, E. (2013). Nursing Outcome Classification (NOC) (5th ed.). Elsevier Mosby
  29. Mueller, J. (2018). Authentic assessment toolbox. http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/ rubrics.htm
  30. Mulyani, S., & Nurjannah, I. (2019). Validation of nursing outcomes’ indicators of nursing outcomes classification of self-care for patients with stroke. Belitung Nursing Journal, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.768
  31. National Association for Continence. (2013). What is incontinence?. http://www.nafc.org/bladder-bowelhealth/
  32. Noble, E. (2014). Using prompts to improve toilet training for children with physical disabilities. https://cdn.rifton.com/-/media/files/rifton/white-papers/toilet-training-children-physical -disabilities.pdf
  33. Nurjannah, I., Nurmasari, P., Nugraha, I. T., Katan, D. Y., & Hariyadi, K. (2017). Interrater reliability of client categorization system as a psychiatric status rating scale in measuring psychiatric patients’ health status. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 5(5), 2193-2201. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20171868
  34. Ragupathi, K., & Lee, A. (2020). Beyond fairness and consistency in grading: The role of rubrics in higher education. In C. S. Sanger and N. W. Gleason (Eds.), Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education, pp 73-95. Springer Nature Singapore
  35. Shweta, Bajpai, R. C., & Chaturvedi, H. K. (2015). Evaluation of inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview of concepts and methods. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41 (Special Issue 3), 20–27
  36. Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256
  37. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  38. Wilson, F., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0748175612440286
  39. World Health Organization and World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. https://www.unicef.org/protection/World_report_on_disability_eng.pdf
  40. Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H., & Nikanfar, A.-R. (2015). Design and implementation content validity study: Development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of Caring Sciences, 4(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/ 10.15171/jcs.2015.017

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.