Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule—Validity, Reliability and Dimensionality of the Norwegian Version
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule—Validity, Reliability and Dimensionality of the Norwegian Version
Do you wish to request the book?
Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule—Validity, Reliability and Dimensionality of the Norwegian Version
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule—Validity, Reliability and Dimensionality of the Norwegian Version
2025
Overview
The objective of this study was to test the validity, reliability and dimensionality of the Norwegian version of the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule (CWIS), a measure for wound‐specific health‐related quality of life. The Norwegian CWIS and a 36‐item short form health survey (SF‐36) were completed by 204 patients with hard‐to‐heal wounds on the lower extremity. The questionnaires were filled in at three time points over 8–14 weeks (T0, T1, T2). The Patients Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was completed at T1 and T2. Demographic and clinical data were collected at T0 and T2. The three‐factor model of the CWIS showed an acceptable fit to the observed data, and the dimensionality was clear as long as two correlated error terms were accepted and four items were removed (χ2 = 426.64, p = 0.000, df = 204, χ2/df = 2.09, RMSEA = 0.074, SRMR = 0.066, CFI = 0.900, TLI = 0.880). Correlation analyses showed significant associations between the CWIS and SF‐36 (0.350**–0.766**), PGIC (−0.277**), wound size (−0.156**), general wound pain intensity (−0.371**) and pain intensity at wound change (−0.240**); all aligned with the expected directions. The intraclass correlations indicated good to excellent test–retest reliability (0.724**–0.951**). The internal consistency ranged from acceptable to excellent (α = 0.78–0.89, ρc = 0.79–0.89). While the questionnaires' ability to detect wound‐related change was low, it was adequate for differentiating between healed and non‐healed ulcers. The Norwegian version of the CWIS demonstrated good reliability and construct validity, making it suitable for evaluating HRQoL in patients with hard‐to‐heal wounds. However, some modifications were made to achieve an acceptable model fit.
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Ltd,John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Subject
/ Aged
/ Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule
/ Disease
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Norway
/ Patients
/ Quality of Life - psychology
/ Validity
