Development and Reliability and Validity Analysis of an Assessment Tool for Postoperative Wound Healing in Adult Patients with Benign Anal Canal and Rectal Diseases

  • Xiaomei Chang Department of Anorectal Surgery, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
  • Shenglin Hu Nursing Department, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
  • Min Zhu Department of Anorectal Surgery, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
  • Min Zou Department of Anorectal Surgery, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
  • Min Li Wound Ostomy Clinic, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
  • Guorong Li Nursing Department, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
  • Zhi Feng Department of Anorectal Surgery, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
  • Hongbo Li Department of Anorectal Surgery, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China
Keywords: Anal canal, Rectum, Benign diseases, Wound healing, Assessment tool, Reliability, Validity

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to develop an assessment tool for postoperative wound healing in adult patients with benign anal canal and rectal diseases and to validate its reliability and validity. Methods: Based on Levine’s Conservation Model as the theoretical framework, an item pool was formed through literature review, and the initial draft of the scale was refined through two rounds of Delphi expert consultation. A total of 200 postoperative patients were selected for item analysis, internal consistency testing, content validity, and structural validity analysis. Results: The final tool comprises four dimensions: energy conservation, structural integrity, personal integrity, and social integrity, with a total of 24 items. It demonstrates good content validity (I-CVI 0.82–1.00, S-CVI/Ave 0.95, S-CVI/UA 0.87) and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α for the overall scale was 0.934). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a KMO value of 0.931, Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 = 4147.853 (p < 0.001), and four common factors were extracted, accounting for a cumulative variance contribution rate of 64.345%, indicating ideal structural validity. Conclusion: The results indicate that the assessment tool has good reliability and validity and can systematically evaluate postoperative wound healing, providing a scientific basis for clinical individualized nursing interventions.

References

Jiang W, Zhang H, Sui N, et al., 2016, Epidemiological Investigation of Common Anorectal Diseases Among Urban Residents in China. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 32(10): 1293–1296.

Cohee M, Hurff A, Gazewood J, 2020, Benign Anorectal Conditions: Evaluation and Management. American Family Physician, 101(1): 24–33.

Chen X, Shi D, Duan H, et al., 2020, Expert Consensus on the Management Standards for Wound Repair After Anorectal Surgery (2019 Edition). Journal of Practical Clinical Medicine, 24(04): 1–4.

Fromantin I, Watson S, Baffie A, et al., 2014, Prospective Descriptive Cohort Study of Malignant Wound Characteristics and Wound Care Strategies in Patients with Breast Cancer. Ostomy/Wound Management, 60(6): 38–48.

Schaefer K, 2014, Levine’s Conservation Model in Nursing Practice. Nursing Models: Utilization & Application, 181–196.

Humphrey-Murto S, Wood T, Gonsalves C, et al., 2020, Delphi Method. Academic Medicine, 95(1): 168.

Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z, 2012, Content Validity Index in Scale Development. Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences, 37(2): 152–155.

Adamson K, Prion S, 2013, Reliability: Measuring Internal Consistency using Cronbach’s α. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 9(5): e179–e180.

Greatrex-White S, Moxey H, 2015, Wound Assessment Tools and Nurses’ Needs: An Evaluation Study. International Wound Journal, 12(3): 293–301.

Wang Z, Li C, Zhang J, et al., 2024, Nursing Care for a Patient with Extensive Skin Ulcers Caused by Epstein–Barr Virus-Positive T/NK Lymphoproliferative Disorder Using a Clinical Decision Support Tool Based on the TIME Principle. Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing, 40(31): 2461–2466.

Published
2025-12-10