Dataset Information

A reliability and validity study of the Palliative Performance Scale.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) was first introduced in1996 as a new tool for measurement of performance status in palliative care. PPS has been used in many countries and has been translated into other languages.

Methods

This study evaluated the reliability and validity of PPS. A web-based, case scenarios study with a test-retest format was used to determine reliability. Fifty-three participants were recruited and randomly divided into two groups, each evaluating 11 cases at two time points. The validity study was based on the content validation of 15 palliative care experts conducted over telephone interviews, with discussion on five themes: PPS as clinical assessment tool, the usefulness of PPS, PPS scores affecting decision making, the problems in using PPS, and the adequacy of PPS instruction.

Results

The intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement were 0.959 and 0.964 for Group 1, at Time-1 and Time-2; 0.951 and 0.931 for Group 2, at Time-1 and Time-2 respectively. Results showed that the participants were consistent in their scoring over the two times, with a mean Cohen's kappa of 0.67 for Group 1 and 0.71 for Group 2. In the validity study, all experts agreed that PPS is a valuable clinical assessment tool in palliative care. Many of them have already incorporated PPS as part of their practice standard.

Conclusion

The results of the reliability study demonstrated that PPS is a reliable tool. The validity study found that most experts did not feel a need to further modify PPS and, only two experts requested that some performance status measures be defined more clearly. Areas of PPS use include prognostication, disease monitoring, care planning, hospital resource allocation, clinical teaching and research. PPS is also a good communication tool between palliative care workers.

SUBMITTER: Ho F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2527603 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A reliability and validity study of the Palliative Performance Scale.

Ho Francis F Lau Francis F Downing Michael G MG Lesperance Mary M

BMC palliative care 20080804

<h4>Background</h4>The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) was first introduced in1996 as a new tool for measurement of performance status in palliative care. PPS has been used in many countries and has been translated into other languages.<h4>Methods</h4>This study evaluated the reliability and validity of PPS. A web-based, case scenarios study with a test-retest format was used to determine reliability. Fifty-three participants were recruited and randomly divided into two groups, each evaluatin ...[more]

PMID: 18680590

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care.AimTo validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change.DesignConcurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test-retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change).Setting/participantsIn all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany.ResultsWe confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher - reflecting more problems - in those patients with 'unstable' or 'deteriorating' versus 'stable' Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test-retest reliability (60% of items kw > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good.ConclusionThe Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unlikely that applications of artificial intelligence (AI) will completely replace physicians. However, it is very likely that AI applications will acquire many of their roles and generate new tasks in medical care. To be ready for new roles and tasks, medical students and physicians will need to understand the fundamentals of AI and data science, mathematical concepts, and related ethical and medico-legal issues in addition with the standard medical principles. Nevertheless, there is no valid and reliable instrument available in the literature to measure medical AI readiness. In this study, we have described the development of a valid and reliable psychometric measurement tool for the assessment of the perceived readiness of medical students on AI technologies and its applications in medicine.MethodsTo define medical students' required competencies on AI, a diverse set of experts' opinions were obtained by a qualitative method and were used as a theoretical framework, while creating the item pool of the scale. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were applied.ResultsA total of 568 medical students during the EFA phase and 329 medical students during the CFA phase, enrolled in two different public universities in Turkey participated in this study. The initial 27-items finalized with a 22-items scale in a four-factor structure (cognition, ability, vision, and ethics), which explains 50.9% cumulative variance that resulted from the EFA. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was 0.87. CFA indicated appropriate fit of the four-factor model (?2/df?=?3.81, RMSEA?=?0.094, SRMR?=?0.057, CFI?=?0.938, and NNFI (TLI)?=?0.928). These values showed that the four-factor model has construct validity.ConclusionsThe newly developed Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale for Medical Students (MAIRS-MS) was found to be valid and reliable tool for evaluation and monitoring of perceived readiness levels of medical students on AI technologies and applications. Medical schools may follow 'a physician training perspective that is compatible with AI in medicine' to their curricula by using MAIRS-MS. This scale could be benefitted by medical and health science education institutions as a valuable curriculum development tool with its learner needs assessment and participants' end-course perceived readiness opportunities.

Dataset Information

A reliability and validity study of the Palliative Performance Scale.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A reliability and validity study of the Palliative Performance Scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets