Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Informant Assessment of Geriatric Delirium Scale.

Background and purpose:

Delirium is a common complication developing in el­der­ly patients. Therefore, it is important to diagnose delirium earlier. Family caregivers play an active role in early diagnosis of de­lirium and build a bridge between health pro­fessionals and patients. The purpose of this research was to achieve the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Informant Assessment of Geriatric Delirium Scale (I-AGeD).

This is a methodological study. The sample comprised 125 caregivers ac­cepting to participate in the study and offering care to older patients with hip fracture aged ≥60 years. Data were gathered preoperatively and on postoperative days 0, 1 and 2. After achieving the linguistic and content validity of the scale, the known-groups comparison was used to achieve its construct validity. The ROC curve analysis was made to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the scale. Item-total correlations, item analysis based on the difference between the upper 27% and lower 27%, Kuder–Richardson 20 (KR-20) coefficient and parallel forms reliability with the NEECHAM Confusion Scale were adapted to assess discriminant indices of the items in the I-AGeD.

The item-total correlation coeffi­cients of the scale ranged from 0.54 to 0.89 and KR-20 coefficient ranged from 0.09 to 0.91 depending on the measurement times. According to the ROC curve analysis, the sensitivity and specificity of the scale were ≥ 91% and ≥ 96% respectively. The parallel forms reliability analysis showed a highly significant, strong negative relation at each measurement between the I-AGeD and the NEECHAM Confusion Scale. 

The I-AGeD is valid and reliable to diagnose delirium in older Turkish patients in perioperative processes.

Assessment of goals in problem-based learning.

Assessing the learning goals set by faculty is an important part of problem-based learning (PBL). Students also develop individual and group goals during module tutorials. They choose learning activities and create a framework for their self-directed study in order to achieve these goals. This investigation analyzes perceptions of the depth of understanding that students acquire. The effects of setting learning goals by faculty and by students themselves are examined, and we explore differences within groups and within the different years in the program. Nursing students responded to a questionnaire indicating how well they thought they had understood new material, according to both the goals preset by the faculty and those developed by the students themselves. A five-point Likert scale was used for this. The findings indicate no significant difference between tutors' and students' evaluations of student level of understanding within the different years of the program. Students and tutors in all three years indicated that they achieved adequate or good understanding of learning goals. (Students: First year: 91.6%, second year: 76.5%, third year: 90.1%; Tutors: First year: 76.8%, second year: 65.7%, third year: 89.1%) These findings are useful for evaluation of PBL outcomes for curriculum committees. Based on these research results, our faculty curriculum committee has decided to give the students a list of faculty generated learning goals at the end of every curriculum module. The students then compare these with their own self-directed goals in feedback sessions with faculty members. These feedback sessions have been very popular with students.