Validity, Reliability, And Application Of The Electronic Version Of A Chronic Kidney Disease Patient Awareness Questionnaire: A Pilot Study

Objectives A questionnaire which provides desirable reliability and validity has been previously developed to assess the disease awareness of diagnosed chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. However, conventional paper questionnaires often have disadvantages, including recall bias. To substantially improve this, we therefore aimed to explore the feasibility of developing a smartphone-based electronic version (e-version) based upon its original paper version and subsequently tested its validity, reliability, and applicability. Methods A pilot study was conducted at Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine in Guangzhou, China, during August 2019. The e-version had identical content to the paper version and was adapted in terms of layout and assisted functions via the Wechat-incorporated Wen-Juan-Xing platform. Eligible patients with diagnosed CKD were invited to participate and were assigned the e-version. Randomly selected respondents received a test-retest of the same e-version 2 weeks after their first completion. In some instances, psychometric properties, including validity and reliability of the e-version, were examined. In others, its clinical application was also tested, which included comparisons among the clinical profiles of patients who had/had not responded to the questionnaire as well as patients with above or below average questionnaire scores. Results Of the 225 patients screened, 217 were enrolled to participate, with a response rate of 52.5%. Desirable reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.962, ICC for total scores = 0.948), while good convergent validity (Cronbach alpha = 0.962) and low discriminant validity (one extracted component), of the e-version were detected. Performing inter-group comparisons highlighted statistical differences in terms of higher education level (z = -2.436, P = 0.015) and earlier CKD stages (z = -1.978,P= 0.048), with these patients often preferring to respond. No significant differences were detected in the clinical profiles between respondents who obtained an above or below average questionnaire score. Conclusion The e-version is reliable but was not shown to be a valid approach. Audiences with higher education levels and less advanced disease condition may prefer to respond to the e-version. Adaptation of this e-questionnaire, from its original paper version, may not be a direct transition and meticulous modifications may be required during the transition process.