Profese online 2016, 9(2):10-15 | DOI: 10.5507/pol.2016.007

Inter-rater reliability of items of the Braden scale, the Norton scale and Waterlow scale

Lenka Šáteková1, Katarína Žiaková2
1 Ústav ošetřovatelství a porodní asistence, Lékařská fakulta, Ostravská Univerzita v Ostravě, Česká republika
2 Ústav ošetrovateľstva, Jesseniova lekárska fakulta v Martine, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Slovenská republika

Background: Worldwide, approximately 40 pressure ulcer risk assessment scales are available. Despite of this amount, the psychometric properties were tested only for some.

Aim: To determine inter-rater reliability of items of selected pressure ulcer risk assessment scales (Braden Scale, Norton Scale and Waterlow Scale).

Methods: The data were collected from April to August 2014 in one long-term care department. The sample consisted of 32 patients. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the inter-rater reliability.

Results: The inter-rater reliability of Braden Scale ranged between ICC = 0.846 for the item "activity" and ICC = 0.645 for the item "nutrition". The highest inter-rater reliability of Norton Scale reached for item "incontinence" (ICC = 0.931), the lowest for item "physical condition" (ICC = 0.849). The highest inter-rater reliability of Waterlow Scale is observed for items "sex" (ICC = 1), "surgery/trauma" (ICC = 1). The lowest inter-rater reliability reached item "weight loss score" (ICC = 0.497).

Conclusions: The highet inter-rater reliability reached items of Norton Scale, followed by items of Braden Scale. The lowest inter-rater reliability reached items of Waterlow Scale. We recommend further testing of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales in czech clinical settings.

Keywords: pressure ulcer, inter-rater reliability, pressure ulcer risk assessment scale, intra-class correlation coefficient, long-term care department

Published: October 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Šáteková, L., & Žiaková, K. (2016). Inter-rater reliability of items of the Braden scale, the Norton scale and Waterlow scale. Profese Online, 9(2), 10-15. doi: 10.5507/pol.2016.007
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article
    Czech version

    References

    1. Ayello EA, Braden B. How and Why to Do Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2002;15(3):125-33. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Costa IG, Caliri MHL. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale for patients in intensive care. Acta paul. Enferm. 2011;24(6):772-7. Go to original source...
    3. Serpa LF, Santos VL, Campanili TC, Queiroz M. Predictive Validity of the Braden Scale for PressureUlcer Risk in Critical Care Patients. Rev Latino - Am Enfermagen. 2011;19(1):50-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Papanikolaou P, Lyne P, Anthony D. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44(2):285-96. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Kottner J, Hauss A, Schlüer AB, Dassen T. Validation and clinical impact of paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(6):807-18. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Keller BPJA, Wille J, Van Ramshorst B, Van der Werken CH. Pressure ulcers in intensive care patients: a review of risks and prevention. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28(10):1379-88. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcer: Quick Reference Guide. Washington DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2014.
    8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pressure Ulcer Prevention. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
    9. Deutsches Netzwerk für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Pflege. Expertenstandard Dekubitusprophylaxe in der Pflege. Hochschule Osnabrück: Deutsches Netzwerk für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Pflege (DNQP); 2010.
    10. Registered Nurses´ Association of Ontario. Risk Assessment & Prevention of Pressure Ulcer. Toronto: Registered Nurses´ Association of Ontario; 2005.
    11. Chan WS, Pang SM, Kwong EW. Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(11):1565-73. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Kwong E, Pang S, Wong T, Ho J, Shao-Ling X, Li-Jun T. Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the modified Braden, Braden, and Norton scales in acute care hospitals in Mainland China. Appl Nurs Res. 2005;18(2):122-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, García-Fernández FP, Soldevilla-Agreda JJ, Martínez-Cuervo F. Pressure ulcer risk assessment: Clinical practice in Spain and a meta-analysis of scales´effectiveness. Gerokomos. 2008;19(2):84-98. Go to original source...
    14. Wang LH, Chen HL, Yan HY, Gao JH, Wang F, Ming Y, Lu L, Ding JJ. Inter-rater reliability of three most commonly used pressure ulcer risk assessment scales in clinical practice. Int Wound J. 2015;12(5):590-4. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Alvarez-Nieto C. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs.2006;54(1):94-110. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assesment scales: review. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw. 2014;5(2):85-92.
    17. Defloor T, Grypdonck MFH. Pressure ulcers: validation of two risk assessment scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(3):373-82. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Principles and Methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
    19. Mandysová P, Pechová J, Ehler E. Využití škály Bradenové pro predikci rizika vzniku dekubitů: inter - rater reliabilita. Ošetřovatelství a porodní asistence. 2013;4(3):609-13.
    20. Mandysová P, Ehler E, Trejbalová L. Česká verze škály Bradenové: metodika překladu a shoda mezi posuzovateli. Ošetrovateľstvo. 2012;2(4):137-42.
    21. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Inter-rater reliabilita Bradenovej škály, Nortonovej škály a Waterlowej škály v Českej republike. In Bužgová R, Sikorová L, editors. Ošetřovatelský výzkum a praxe založená na důkazech: X. mezinárodní sympózium ošetřovatelství; 2016 květen 26; Ostrava, Česká Republika. Ostrava: Ostravská Univerzita v Ostravě; 2016, p. 214-20.
    22. Kottner J, Dassen T. Interpreting interrater reliability coefficients of the Braden scale: A discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45(8):1238-46. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Kottner J, Halfens R, Dassen T. An interrater reliability study of the assessment of pressure ulcer risk using the Braden scale and the classification of pressure ulcer in a home care setting. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(10):1307-12. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. Mikula J, Műllerová N. Prevence dekubitů. Praha: Grada; 2008.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content