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, Shenglin Hu, Min Zhu, Min Zou, Min Li, Guorong Li, Zhi Feng, Hongbo Li

Show Less

¹ Department of Anorectal Surgery, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China,

² Nursing Department, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China,

³ Wound Ostomy Clinic, Ya’an People’s Hospital, Ya’an 625000, Sichuan, China,

JCNR 2025 , 9(11), 293–300; https://doi.org/10.26689/jcnr.v9i11.13008

© 2025 by the Authors. Licensee Whioce Publishing, Singapore. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

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.

Previous article in this issue

Next article in this issue