Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the neonatal/infant Braden Q risk assessment scale

Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire for screening children and adolescents for plastic surgery: cross-cultural validation study

“…The number of patients participating in the cultural adaptation, reliability and validity phases was similar to that used in previous studies evaluating the psychometric properties of social construct measurements in plastic surgery populations, [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] and was in accordance with the methodology internationally accepted and used for translation, cultural adaptation and validation of instruments. [30][31][32][33][34] According to Sapnas and Zeller, 34 the traditional protocol for determination of an adequate sample size based on power analysis is not appropriate for studies assessing the psychometric properties of social construct measurements; a total sample size of 50 subjects or more is adequate for representing the study population.…”

Validity and Reliability of a Revised Northampton Neonatal Skin Assessment Tool in Turkish Language

“…In the validity and reliability testing of Lund and Osborn's (2004) neonatal skin condition scale (NSCS) (3), this rate was 89%; in the Neonatal skin risk assessment scale (15) by Huffines and Logton (1997), it was found to be 97%, and the same rate was 98% in the neonatal braden Q risk assessment scale by Lima et al, 2016 (9). No scales on neonatal total skin assessment have been tested for validity and reliability in the Turkish literature.…”

“…The existence of these additional skin findings (signs) increase the risk of skin injury and must not be ignored in the assessment. In addition, age is an important factor because the skin of a term newborn matures between 14 and 21 days and the younger the postnatal age, the higher will be the risk of skin damage and iatrogenic injury (2,3,(6)(7)(8)(9). For this reason, the tool's validity and reliability were examined before the items were removed.…”

“…In the skin assessment of the neonate, it is recommended that a careful evaluation is made of every kind of cannula or probe that may require the application of adhesive tape to the infant's skin, including any existing edema, including pressure sores, which may increase the risk of skin injury, and every kind of cannula, drain, and phototherapy, which may increase subcutaneous fluid loss and disrupt skin integrity (2,3,(6)(7)(8)(9). The findings of the study show a high discrimination power in items NNS9, NNS6, NNS5, NNS7, signs, NNS4, NN3, and NSNS1.…”

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Neonatal Skin Risk Assessment Scale

“…Some authors said that these current neonatal scales present major limitations (García‐Fernández et al., ; Kottner et al., ). Neonatal scales include: the Neonatal Skin Condition Scale (Lund & Osborne, ), which is not specific for PU risk assessment and its study validation did not assess the PU, rather only skin condition and the prevalence of skin infection; the Seton scale (Vance, Demel, Kirksey, Moynihan, & Hollis, ), which remains under preparation and cannot be used because it is not fully designed and validated; the Neonatal/Infant Braden Q scale (Ashworth & Briggs, ), which is currently under validation (de Lima, de Brito, Souza, Salome, & Ferreira, ), a free adaptation of the Braden Q scale with the addition of the subscale “General Physical Condition” from the Neonatal Skin Risk Assessment Scale (NSRAS); the Glamorgan scale (Willock, Baharestani, & Anthony, ), designed for children from birth to 14 years old, evaluated in a retrospective study with inappropriate inter‐rater reliability measures, only provide information about the degree and direction of association; and the NSRAS (Huffines & Logsdon, ), based on the adult Braden scale, with a convenience sampling, small sample size and the missing replications. None of the described scales has been validated properly.…”