Development and evaluation of cardiac implantable electronic devices knowledge scale


PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol.46, no.5, pp.376-384, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 46 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Doi Number: 10.1111/pace.14692
  • Journal Name: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SportDiscus
  • Page Numbers: pp.376-384
  • Keywords: 43(40):, cardiac implantable electronic devices, instrument development, patients’ knowledge, reliability, validity
  • Dokuz Eylül University Affiliated: Yes


Background: Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) need specific education to successfully adapt to life with new devices in their bodies. This requires specifically-tailored training processes. To determine the educational requirements, robust measurement tools are essential; however, a literature review revealed that no reliable and valid knowledge scale currently exists for patients with CIEDs. Objective: The study was conducted to develop and test the psychometric properties of the scale for measuring the knowledge of patients with CIEDs. Methods: The cross-sectional and descriptive study was conducted with 150 patients with CIEDs. Data were collected with a specially-developed cardiac implantable electronic devices knowledge (CIEDsK) Scale consisting of 14 questions. To determine the reliability of the scale, the following tests were performed: Kuder Richardson-20 reliability coefficient, intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis, and corrected item-total scale correlation analyses. The content validity, predictive validity, and item discrimination index were examined to evaluate the validity of the scale. Results: The Kuder Richardson-20 reliability coefficient indicated very good internal consistency (.92). ICC was.92, demonstrating excellent reliability. Four questions were removed after failing to meet the inclusion criteria for the content validity index (<0.70), the discrimination index (<0.10), and item-total correlation (<0.20). Predictive validity analyses showed that the following were effective in predicting the total score: age, income status, implantation length, and informed by a healthcare professional, however, education level was not. After all analyses, 10 multiple-choice questions remained in the final scale about living with CIEDs. Conclusion: The study showed that the CIEDsK scale is valid and reliable for measuring the knowledge of patients with CIEDs in daily practice. Thus, patient-tailored education sessions can be designed according to the knowledge level of the patients determined.