Content Validation of Terms and Definitions in a Wound Glossary

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


Objective: A common language and lexicon provide the easiest means of mutual understanding. Inconsistency in terminology makes effective information exchange difficult. Previous studies identified the need to determine standard, accepted definitions for the vocabulary frequently used in wound care. The objective of this study was to establish content validation for these terms and develop an evidence-based glossary for this specialty. Methods: Members of the Association for the Advancement of Wound Care Quality of Care Task Force reviewed literature to determine glossary content generation and the associated literature-based definitions. Thirty-nine wound care professionals from wound care stakeholder professional organizations in the United States and Canada participated in the content validation process. Participants were asked to quantify the degree of validity using a 367-item, 4-point Likert-type scale. Results: On a scale of 1 to 4, the mean score of the entire instrument was 3.84. The instrument's overall scale content validity index was 0.96. Terms with an item content validity index of less than 0.70 were removed from the glossary, leaving 365 items with established content validity. Qualitative data analysis revealed themes suggesting that enhanced communication between providers improves patient outcomes. The need for ongoing updates of the glossary was also identified. Conclusion: The wound care glossary in its finalized form proved valid. An evidence-based glossary bridges the chasm of miscommunication and nonstandardization so that wound care, as an emerging specialized medical science field, can move forward to optimize both process and clinical outcomes. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.




Milne, C. T., Paine, T., Sullivan, V., & Sawyer, A. (2011). Content Validation of Terms and Definitions in a Wound Glossary. Journal of the American College of Clinical Wound Specialists, 3(4), 71–76.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free