Development and Preliminary Psychometric Validation of the Gout Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (G‐KAP) Questionnaire: An Asia‐Pacific Multicenter Study
Binit Vaidya, Jose Paulo Lorenzo, Hanna Monica Z. Sollano, Manisha Bhochhibhoya, Khabizhanova Venera Bolatovna, Ronaldo De Vera, Ana Monica Estrella, Shweta Nakarmi, Kanon Jatuworapruk, Claire Teo, Rakhma Yanti Hellmi, Paramjeet Singh, Panchalee Satpanich, Mustafa Alhayali, Fariz Yahya, Galymzhan TogizbayevABSTRACT
Aim
To develop and undertake preliminary psychometric validation of the Gout Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (G‐KAP) Questionnaire for patients with gout in multiple Asia‐Pacific clinical settings.
Methods
Six development experts and nine relevance experts reviewed the English 56‐question instrument. Analyses included 312 baseline participants from 10 countries and 117 paired assessments; 149 participants formed an additional recruitment‐wave subset. Language assistance involved oral explanation without a fixed translation script. We evaluated content relevance, keyed knowledge reliability, item‐level stability, and exploratory structure using explicit coding and missing‐data rules.
Results
S‐CVI/Ave was 0.998 across 68 rated rows. The 19‐indicator knowledge score averaged 56.1% ± 20.3%; KR‐20 was 0.770 and common‐factor omega 0.764. Absolute‐agreement single‐measure ICC was 0.763 (95% bootstrap CI 0.635–0.857); mean retest increase was 2.34 percentage points ( p = 0.037). Numeric attitude ICCs ranged 0.345–0.838. Among 303 complete cases for 38 exploratory indicators, full‐matrix and common‐factor parallel analyses suggested 7 and 11 dimensions. The seven‐factor comparison model included two weak two‐item factors and ambiguous cross‐loadings.
Conclusion
The English G‐KAP shows strong expert‐rated relevance and encouraging preliminary knowledge‐score reliability. Oral‐assistance variability, unequal recruitment and uncertain dimensionality limit interpretation. Cross‐cultural validity, measurement invariance, attitude/practice composite scores and clinical effectiveness are unestablished. Standardized administration, linguistic adaptation and independent confirmatory evaluation are needed before cross‐country comparison or subscale development.