Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive regular foot self-care is one of the most critical self-management behaviors for people with diabetes to prevent foot ulcer development and related complications. Yet, adequate foot self-care is only practiced by very few of those affected. To improve diabetic foot syndrome prevention, a valid and reliable instrument for measuring daily foot-care routines in patients with diabetes is needed. However, no such instrument is currently available in the German language. This study, therefore, aims to translate and cross-culturally adapt the "Diabetic Foot Self-Care Behavior Scale" (DFSBS) into German (DFSBS-D) and evaluate its validity and reliability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The DFSBS was translated from English into German using a forward-backward procedure as per previous recommendations. Factor analysis was used to study structural validity. To establish construct validity, 21 a priori hypotheses were defined regarding the expected correlation between scores on the new German version (i.e., DFSBS-D) and those of the following questionnaires measuring related constructs: (1) German version "Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure" (SDSCA-G), (2) "Frankfurter Catalogue of Foot Self-Care" (FCFSP), and (3) "Short Form 36" (SF-36) and tested in 82 patients. To assess test-retest reliability, patients completed the DFSBS-D again after a 2-week interval. Test-retest reliability was assessed from stable patients' data (n = 48) by calculating two-way random-effects absolute agreement ICCs with 95% CI and Bland and Altman analyses. In addition, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as internal consistency measure. RESULTS: The 7-item DFSBS-D showed good structural validity. Its single factor explains 57% of the total sample variance. Of the 21 predefined hypotheses, 13 (62%) were confirmed. The DFSBS-D's internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87). Test-retest reliability over a 2-week interval was also good (ICC 0.76). CONCLUSION: The DFSBS was successfully translated into German. Statistical analyses showed good DFSBS-D structural validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. Yet, construct validity may be debated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lecker et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: