I want to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of householders regarding unintentional injuries prevention and early management of these injuries in Iran. To do this I need to know if there is any valid and reliable tool for this already. And if not, is there any tool like this or close to this?
In Brazil, for research in tobacco in students, we used Global Health Professions Student Survey (GHPSS). This questionnaire is based in recommendation of WHO, for this link.
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/tobacco/data-and-statistics/effective-surveillance-and-monitoring/global-tobacco-surveillance-system-gtss/global-health-professions-student-survey-ghpss
In the United States many studies have assessed injuries in the home. I recommend you research the work Carol Runyan as she and colleagues reviewed the following:
Data derived from the National Health Interview Survey, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys for Outpatient and Emergency Departments.
Also B. Morrongiello is well-known for her work in parental supervision in the home and has used several validated home injury tools she and colleagues developed.
Results
Hello Saeid,
In 2007 the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) implemented a comprehensive unintentional injury-prevention program in Scotland. Their report "PREVENTING UNINTENTIONAL INJURIES TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND" which details surveillance statistics, methodology, and many links to websites with related foci is here:
http://www.childsafetyeurope.org/europe/info/scotland/scotland-planning-document.pdf
It may be of some use to you.
There are undoubtedly many questionnaires that fit part of what you seek. But apart from test-retest reliability I doubt if many can meet that requirement and I am even more doubtful than any have proven validity. In fact, I find it hard to imagine what would constitute a valid measure of attitudes and almost as hard to decide what criteria should be used to measure reported knowledge and practices.
Thanks Barry you are correct - Saeid's use of "valid" and "reliable" just about rule out all instrumentation available. The field just isn't all that rigorous and most of what is out there constitutes checklists etc. Even those who have been doing this kind of thing for years are prone to threats to validity and generalizability. If anyone knows of examples of programs based on reliable, validated instrumentation it would be appreciated if they are shared here!
What about Morrongiello's work on parental supervision and injuries? She has validated those tools.
Hi Karen thanks - I think here is an example where she's actually done test-retest reliability and not the statistical validity things necessary to call her instrumentation "valid" - but I may be wrong, I'm going to look into her validation techniques.
Hi there-try this link from a manuscript by the author that shows the tool as externally valid:
Published in final edited form as:
Inj Prev. Oct 2009; 15(5): 300–306.
doi: 10.1136/ip.2008.020958
Well, clearly, I know that paper because it is in the journal I used to edit. I am still inclined to think that to "validate" those constructs in the sense that epidemiologists use the term is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Right-I was actually responding to Alan's email with the link. I agree that the validations thus far need improvement-especially for internal validity.
Barbara Morrongiello is here on ResearchGate at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Morrongiello/publications can she speak to this issue? She likely knows many more resources than we do...
I don't know how to do it --- send her a message asking her to join this question --- can anyone advise? Thanks!
Dear Karen, Alan and Barry, I really appreciated all your answers. As you mentioned I found that Barbara has many experiences in this field and she has developed a questionnaire called BACKIE which I emailed her to send a copy of it to me. Now I am waiting to receive her email.