Reliability and responsiveness of the Danish version of The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Katrine Astrup ◽  
Evelyn Corner ◽  
Maurits Van Tulder ◽  
Lotte Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Physical Assessment ◽  
Danish Version

scholarly journals Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e045550
Author(s):  
Zhigang Zhang ◽  
Guoqiang Wang ◽  
Yuchen Wu ◽  
Jin Guo ◽  
Nannan Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Western China ◽  
Validity Index ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Physical Assessment ◽  
Content Validity Index

PurposeTo translate and adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) into Chinese version (‘CPAx-Chi’), test the reliability and validity of CPAx-Chi, and verify the cut-off point for the diagnosis of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW).Study designCross-sectional observational study.MethodsForward and back translation, cross-cultural adaptation and pretesting of CPAx into CPAx-Chi were based on the Brislin model. Participants were recruited from the general ICU of five third-grade class-A hospitals in western China. Two hundred critically ill adult patients (median age: 53 years; 64% men) with duration of ICU stay ≥48 hours and Glasgow Coma Scale ≥11 were included in this study. Two researchers simultaneously and independently assessed eligible patients using the Medical Research Council Muscle Score (MRC-Score) and CPAx-Chi.ResultsThe content validity index of items was 0.889. The content validity index of scale was 0.955. Taking the MRC-Score scale as standard, the criterion validity of CPAx-Chi was r=0.758 (p<0.001) for researcher A, and r=0.65 (p<0.001) for researcher B. Cronbach’s α was 0.939. The inter-rater reliability was 0.902 (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of CPAx-Chi for diagnosing ICU-AW based on MRC-Score ≤48 were 0.899 (95% CI 0.862 to 1.025) and 0.874 (95% CI 0.824 to 0.925) for researcher B. The best cut-off point for CPAx-Chi for the diagnosis of ICU-AW was 31.5. The sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 77% for researcher A, whereas it was 0.621, 31.5, 75% and 87% for researcher B, respectively. The consistency was high when taking CPAx-Chi ≤31 and MRC-Score ≤48 as the cut-off points for the diagnosis of ICU-AW. Cohen’s kappa=0.845 (p=0.02) in researcher A and 0.839 (p=0.04) for researcher B.ConclusionsCPAx-Chi demonstrated content validity, criterion-related validity and reliability. CPAx-Chi showed the best accuracy in assessment of patients at risk of ICU-AW with good sensitivity and specificity at a recommended cut-off of 31.

Traduction et adaptation interculturelle du « Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool »

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (192) ◽  
pp. 20
Author(s):  
Valentine Stefanicki Hanschur ◽  
Yvonne Brülhart ◽  
Björn Zante ◽  
Sabrina Eggmann ◽  
Martin L. Verra
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Physical Assessment

scholarly journals Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool into Danish

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 1027-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrine Astrup ◽  
Evelyn J. Corner ◽  
Marianne Godt Hansen ◽  
Annemette Krintel Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Cultural Adaptation ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Physical Assessment ◽  
Cross Cultural Adaptation

scholarly journals P248 Measuring physical recovery in the critical care population: development of the Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool (CPAx)

Thorax ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 65 (Suppl 4) ◽  
pp. A180-A181 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. J. Corner ◽  
H. Wood ◽  
C. Englebretsen ◽  
S. Boot ◽  
D. Nikoletou
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Population Development ◽  
Physical Assessment ◽  
Physical Recovery

The responsiveness of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool in measuring functional recovery in the burns critical care population: An observational study

Burns ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn J. Corner ◽  
Louise V. Hichens ◽  
Kate M. Attrill ◽  
Marcela P. Vizcaychipi ◽  
Stephen J. Brett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Functional Recovery ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Physical Assessment

scholarly journals Reliability, Validity, and Cutoff Point of the Chinese Version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in Critically Ill Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuchen Wu ◽  
Guoqiang Wang ◽  
Nannan Ding ◽  
Biantong Jiang ◽  
Zhigang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cultural Adaptation ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Chinese Version ◽  
Cutoff Point ◽  
Physical Assessment ◽  
Cross Cultural Adaptation

Abstract Purpose: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) into a Chinese version of CPAx (“CPAx-Chi”), test the reliability and validity of CPAx-Chi, and verify the cutoff point for the diagnosis of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) Material and methods: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of CPAx into CPAx-Chi was based on the Brislin model. Participants were recruited from the general ICU of five third-grade class-A hospitals in western China. Adult patients (n = 200) 48 h after receiving intensive care were included (median age, 53 years; 64% males). Patients were assessed by two assessment scales: Medical Research Council Muscle Score (MRC-Score) and CPAx-Chi.Results: The item-level content validity was 0.889. The scale-level content validity was 0.955. Taking the MRC-Score scale as standard, the criterion validity of CPAx-Chi was r = 0.758 (p < 0.001) for Researcher A, and r = 0.65 (p < 0.001) for Researcher B. Cronbach’s ɑ was 0.939. The inter-rater reliability was 0.902 (p < 0.001). The AUC of CPAx-Chi for diagnosing ICU-AW based on MRC-Score ≤48 was 0.899 (95%CI 0.862–1.025) and 0.874 (0.824–0.925) for Researcher B. The maximum value of the Youden Index was 0.643, and the best cutoff point for CPAx-Chi for the diagnosis of ICU-AW was 31.5. The sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 77% for Researcher A, whereas it was 0.621, 31.5, 75%, and 87% for Researcher B, respectively. The consistency was high when taking CPAx-Chi ≤31 and MRC-Score ≤48 as the cutoff points for the diagnosis of ICU-AW. Also, kappa = 0.845 (p = 0.02) in Researcher A and 0.839 (p = 0.04) for Researcher B. Conclusions: CPAx-Chi had good content validity, criterion-related validity and reliability. CPAx-Chi showed the best accuracy in assessment of patients at risk for ICU-AW with good sensitivity and specificity at a recommended cutoff of 31.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document