Turkish Adaptation of Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center’s Revised Diabetes Knowledge Test and Determination of Factors Affecting the Knowledge Level of Diabetic Individuals

Abstract

Objective: Education is the cornerstone of diabetes management, and numerous educational studies used Diabetes Knowledge Level Tests to determine the effectiveness of education. Our study was planned to adopt the revised Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT2) of the Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center for the Turkish population. Material and Methods: A total of 296 diabetic subjects using insulin were included in the study. After the determination of the validity of the language and content of the test, it was applied to the patients. The reliability of the study was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The results of the DKT2 demographic values, and laboratory tests of the patients were noted. Results: Cronbach's alpha values were 0.60, 0.59, and 0.70 for the first part, second part, and complete test, respectively. The test-retest reliability values were 0.76 and 0.87 (p<0.001), respectively. The correct response rate to the first part was 32.68±2.47% in patients with Type 1 diabetes and 32.16±2.66% in patients with Type 2 diabetes using insulin. The correct response rate to the second part was 19.68±2.05% and 19.55±2.96%, respectively. Discussion: The Turkish adapted version of DKT2 is a reliable tool to measure patients' level of diabetes knowledge. However, in order to increase the level of knowledge of the patients, education of diabetes should be improved.

The dietary knowledge measurement instruments in diabetes: A systematic psychometric review

“…Nine instruments were identified that were specifically designed to assess dietary knowledge in patients with DM type 1 or 2: the Diabetes Patient Knowledge Test (DPKT) (Hess & Davis, 1983), the Diabetes Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKN) (Dunn et al., 1984), and the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT) (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Alhaiti et al., 2016; Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010; Collins et al., 2011; Fenwick et al., 2013; Fitzgerald et al., 1998, 2016; Hasan et al., 2019; İDİZ et al., 2020; Mangla et al., 2019; Sigurdardottir & Benediktsson, 2008), the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) (Ahmad et al., 2010; Bukhsh et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2001; W. Sami et al., 2017), the Diabetes Knowledge Assessment Test (DKAT) (Weeks et al., 2015), the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (PDQ) (Cheng et al., 2018; Stetson et al., 2011), the Diabetes Mellitus Knowledge (DMK) (W. Sami et al., 2017), the Conocidiet‐Diabetes (Brito‐Brito et al., 2020), and the Diabetes‐related Nutrition Knowledge (DRNK) (Han et al., 2019).…”

“…The characteristics of the included instruments for measuring dietary knowledge and studies are presented in Table 2. In most cases the original language used was English, although we found several of these questionnaires in which a cross‐cultural validation was carried out; in Icelandic (Sigurdardottir & Benediktsson, 2008), Malay (Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010), Arabic (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Alhaiti et al., 2016; Hasan et al., 2019), and Turkish (İDİZ et al., 2020) versions of the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test, a Spanish (Garcia et al., 2001), and Urdu (Bukhsh et al., 2017) version of the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire, and a Chinese version (Cheng et al., 2018) of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire. Different versions of the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Alhaiti et al., 2016; Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010; Collins et al., 2011; Fenwick et al., 2013; Fitzgerald et al., 1998, 2016; Hasan et al., 2019; İDİZ et al., 2020; Mangla et al., 2019; Sigurdardottir & Benediktsson, 2008), Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (Ahmad et al., 2010; Bukhsh et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2001; W. Sami et al., 2017), and Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (Cheng et al., 2018; Stetson et al., 2011) were carried out, each of which varied in the number of items.…”

“…In most cases the original language used was English, although we found several of these questionnaires in which a cross‐cultural validation was carried out; in Icelandic (Sigurdardottir & Benediktsson, 2008), Malay (Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010), Arabic (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Alhaiti et al., 2016; Hasan et al., 2019), and Turkish (İDİZ et al., 2020) versions of the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test, a Spanish (Garcia et al., 2001), and Urdu (Bukhsh et al., 2017) version of the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire, and a Chinese version (Cheng et al., 2018) of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire. Different versions of the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Alhaiti et al., 2016; Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010; Collins et al., 2011; Fenwick et al., 2013; Fitzgerald et al., 1998, 2016; Hasan et al., 2019; İDİZ et al., 2020; Mangla et al., 2019; Sigurdardottir & Benediktsson, 2008), Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (Ahmad et al., 2010; Bukhsh et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2001; W. Sami et al., 2017), and Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (Cheng et al., 2018; Stetson et al., 2011) were carried out, each of which varied in the number of items. Most of these studies were carried out in the hospital, community, and primary care settings, in patients with type 1 DM (Mangla et al., 2019; Sigurdardottir & Benediktsson, 2008), type 2 DM (Alhaiti et al., 2016; Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010; Bukhsh et al., 2017; Cheng et al., 2018; Fenwick et al., 2013; Garcia et al., 2001; Han et al., 2019; W. Sami et al., 2017), or type 1 and 2 DM (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Brito‐Brito et al., 2020; Dunn et al., 1984; Fitzgerald et al., 1998, 2016; Hasan et al., 2019; Hess & Davis, 1983; İDİZ et al., 2020; Stetson et al., 2011; Weeks et al., …”

“…Most of the studies were carried out in Asia, where the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test was used on the greatest number of occasions in Malaysia (Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010), Saudi Arabia (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Alhaiti et al., 2016), India (Mangla et al., 2019), United Arab Emirates (Hasan et al., 2019), and Turkey (İDİZ et al., 2020). The same happened in the case of the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire , which was used for three studies in Malaysia (Ahmad et al., 2010), Pakistan (Bukhsh et al., 2017), and Saudi Arabia (W. Sami et al., 2017).…”

“…For the type of question/answer used in each of the questionnaires, most items were questions with multiple choice answers; including the Diabetes Patient Knowledge Test (Hess & Davis, 1983), Diabetes Knowledge Assessment Scale (Dunn et al., 1984), Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (Al Qahtani et al., 2016; Alhaiti et al., 2016; Al‐Qazaz et al., 2010; Fenwick et al., 2013; Fitzgerald et al., 1998, 2016; İDİZ et al., 2020; Mangla et al., 2019; Sigurdardottir & Benediktsson, 2008), Revised Diabetes Knowledge Scale (RDKS) (Collins et al., 2011) (a short version of the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test ), Diabetes‐related Nutrition Knowledge (Han et al., 2019), and the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (W. Sami et al., 2017). The format in the rest of the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (Ahmad et al., 2010; Bukhsh et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2001) was closed questions that had three possible answer options 1) Yes, 2) No, and 3) "I don't know."…”