Buy this Article for $10.95

Have a coupon or promotional code? Enter it here:

When you buy this you'll get access to the ePub version, a downloadable PDF, and the ability to print the full article.

Authors

  1. Langemo, Diane K. PhD, RN
  2. Melland, Helen PhD, RN
  3. Olson, Bette MS, RN
  4. Hanson, Darlene MS, RN
  5. Hunter, Susan MS, RN
  6. Henly, Susan J. PhD, RN
  7. Thompson, Patricia MS, RN

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 wound volume measurement techniques, the Kundin device and stereophotogrammetry, on 2 wound shapes.

 

DESIGN: Using 2 wound measurement techniques, the interrater and intrarater reliability and the bias and standard error of measurement of an L-shaped and a pear-shaped plaster of paris wound model were assessed.

 

SETTING: A clinical laboratory of a school of nursing.

 

PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four raters, all but 2 being registered nurses, measured each of the wounds using both techniques.

 

INTERVENTIONS: Each rater measured each wound twice using each method in a randomly assigned order defined on a card that was drawn from a box. Measurements were recorded on a researcher-designed data collection form, which included some demographic data related to each participant.

 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The study hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in accuracy between the 2 wound volume measurement methods.

 

RESULTS: The least biased and most accurate technique was stereophotogrammetry, with the smallest standard of error of measurement. Interrater reliability of average ratings was identical for both methods at 0.98. For single ratings, stereophotogrammetry was slightly higher than the Kundin device. Intrarater reliability was higher on the pear-shaped wound for the Kundin device, which had lower interrater reliability, suggesting that nurses were consistent in the direction and size of personal error. Intrarater reliability for stereophotogrammetry was identical to that of the Kundin device for the L-shaped wound and lower for the pear-shaped wound.

 

CONCLUSIONS: Although both techniques have acceptable accuracy, stereophotogrammetry is more accurate and has more clinical applications.