Skip to main content

Design and research on reliability-validity for 3S intraoperative risk assessment scale of pressure sore


The reliability and validity of risk assessment scale (RAS) of pressure sore during 3S surgery were investigated. RAS of pressure sore was designed independently during 3S surgery. Five operating room nursing experts were selected to consult and detect face validity. Convenient and purposive sampling of 707 samples was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure content reliability and evaluate the internal consistence of RAS. The structural reliability was investigated by exploratory factor analysis method. The results showed that the content validity index was 0.92, and Cronbach’s alpha of content reliability was 0.71. Structural validity, detected by Bartlett sphericity test, was 135.3 for 707 samples with the difference being statistically significant (P<0.01). KMO value was 0.729. The accumulative variance contribution ratio of common factor was 64.63%. The exploratory factor analysis showed the factor load of every clause was larger than 0.596. It was concluded that RAS of pressure sore for 3S surgery has better validity and reliability, and it could be used for evaluating and screening the high risk patients with pressure sores during surgery in order to efficiently reduce the occurrence of pressure sore during surgery. RAS of pressure sore for 3S surgery is worth to be popularized.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1

    Burdette-Taylor SR, Kass J. Heel ulcers in critical care unit: a major pressure problem. Crit Care Nurs Q, 2002,25(2):41–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Boynton P, et al. Using a research-based assessment scale in clinical practice. Nurs Clin North Am, 1995,30(3):539–551

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Wong E, Pang S, Wong T, et al. Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the modified Braden. Braden and Norton Scales in acute care hospitals in mainland China. Appl Nurs Res, 2005,18(2):122–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Xiao SZ. Nursing Study (Chinese). 3rd eds. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2007,87–90.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Wu ML. SPSS statistical application practice-questionnaire analysis and application statistics (Chinese). Beijing: Science Press, 2003,13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Chen YC, Tang XJ. Analysis and protection progress for high risk factors of pressure sores under operation. J Nurs Training (Chinese), 2010,25(15):1358–1359

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Schultz A. Predicting and preventing pressure ulcers in surgical patients. AORN J, 2005,81(5):986–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Price MC, Whitney JD, King CA, et al. Development of a risk assessment tool for intraoperative pressure ulcers. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs, 2005,32(1):19–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Wei G, Hu L, Zhu FM. Design and application of high-risk factors assessment scale for pressure sores of surgical patients. Chin J Nurs (Chinese), 2011,46(6):578–580

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Liu Y, Gao XL. Study progress for intraoperative pressure sores in China. J Modern Nurs (Chinese), 2013,19(8):981–982

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Ma Q, Gao XL, Liu J, et Al. Study on 3S assessment scale applied in front-feedback control of intraoperative pressure sores. Nurs Res (Chinese), 2014,28(5B):1722–1723

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xing-lian Gao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gao, Xl., Hu, Jj., Ma, Q. et al. Design and research on reliability-validity for 3S intraoperative risk assessment scale of pressure sore. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. [Med. Sci.] 35, 291–294 (2015).

Download citation

Key words

  • intraoperative pressure sores
  • 3S assessment form
  • design
  • reliability
  • validity