The Criterion Validity, Reliability, and Feasibility of an Instrument for Assessing the Nursing Intensity in Perioperative Settings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rauta S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5535700 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Criterion Validity, Reliability, and Feasibility of an Instrument for Assessing the Nursing Intensity in Perioperative Settings.
Rauta Satu S Salanterä Sanna S Vahlberg Tero T Junttila Kristiina K
Nursing research and practice 20170717
Patient classification systems generate information for staff allocation based on a patient's care needs. This study aims to test further the instrument for assessing nursing intensity (NI) in perioperative settings. Nine operating departments from five university hospitals were involved. The perioperative nurses gathered data from patients (<i>N</i> = 876) representing different fields of surgery. Reliability was tested by parallel classifications (<i>n</i> = 144). Also, the users' (<i>n</i> = ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The Assess2Perform Bar Sensei is a device used to measure barbell velocity for velocity-based training that has not yet been validated. The purpose of this study was to determine criterion validity and reliability of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei in barbell back squats by comparing it against the GymAware PowerTool, a previously validated instrument. Sixteen injury-free, resistance-trained subjects (eleven males and five females) were recruited. Subjects were tested for their back squat one repetition maximum (1RM). Then, on two separate days, subjects performed two sets of three repetitions at loads of 45%, 60% and 75% 1RM. The GymAware PowerTool and Bar Sensei were attached to the barbell in similar locations for concurrent collection of mean concentric velocity (MCV) and peak concentric velocity (PCV). The Bar Sensei and PowerTool showed generally fair to poor agreement for MCV and PCV when subjects lifted 45% of 1RM (intraclass correlation;ICC 0.4-0.59), and they showed poor agreement when subjects lifted 60% and 75% of 1RM (ICC 0.3-0.4). Inter-repetition/within-set reliability for the Bar Sensei ranged between ICC = 0.273-0.451 for MCV and PCV compared to the far more reliable PowerTool (ICC = 0.651-0.793). Currently, the Bar Sensei is not a reliable or valid tool for measuring barbell velocity in back squats.
| S-EPMC6915617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn a rapidly changing healthcare environment, Self-directed learning (SDL) ability is recognized as a crucial condition for nursing students and nurse to deal with severe challenges positively. Developing SDL ability is becoming more and more important among nursing students. SDL is related to nursing students enhancing their own knowledge, skills and maintaining lifelong learning. This study is aim at translating the Self-directed Learning Instrument (SDLI) into Chinese and verify its reliability and validity among nursing students.MethodsThe study adopted a cross-sectional design and the multistage sampling design. The SDLI was translated into Chinese, and the reliability and validity of the scale were tested among 975 nursing students.ResultsThe Cronbach's α value of the Chinese version of SDLI was 0.916. The split-half reliability coefficient was 0.829, and the retest coefficient was 0.884. The content validity index of the scale was 0.95. Furthermore, the four-factors model was obtained by using exploratory factor analysis, explaining 55.418% variance, and the communalities of the items ranged from 0.401 to 0.664. With modified confirmatory factor analysis, the fit indices were chi-square/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF) = 2.285, the comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.947, and the tucker lewis index (TLI) was 0.938. And, the model fitting indexes were all in the acceptable range and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the model fit the SDLI well.ConclusionThe Chinese version of SDLI has good validity and reliability among nursing students. It can be used to measure the SDL ability of nursing students in China.
| S-EPMC9950017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe aimed to conduct psychometric tests for the Chinese version of ICECAP-A and compare the differences between ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L for patients with T2DM and explore the relationship between clinical conditions and ICECAP-A through diabetes-related clinical indicators.MethodsData were collected from a sample of 492 Chinese T2DM patients. The reliability and validity of the ICECAP-A were verified. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted for both the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L.ResultsOur results show that the Chinese version of ICECAP-A has good internal consistency with an overall Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.721. The mean scores of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L are 0.85 vs. 0.94. A weak correlation (r = 0.116) was found between the ICECAP-A tariff and EQ-5D-3L utility. EFA showed that although the five dimensions of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L scales were loaded into two different factors respectively. However, the two scales captured different dimensions of quality of life and can complement each other. The ICECAP-A, EQ-5D-3L, and EQ-VAS scores showed differences across different socio-demographic characteristics and clinic conditions groups.ConclusionThe Chinese version of the ICECAP-A capability instrument can be for assessing outcomes in adults with T2DM. It may capture more dimensions of QoL than traditional Health-related QoL (HRQoL) instruments and may be useful for economic evaluations of health care and social care for people with T2DM or other chronic diseases.
| S-EPMC7788876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow and middle-income countries have growing older populations and could benefit from the use of multi-domain geriatric assessments in overcoming the challenge of providing quality health services to older persons. This paper reports on the outcomes of a study carried out in Cape Town, South Africa on the validity of the interRAI Check-Up Self-Report instrument, a multi-domain assessment instrument designed to screen older persons in primary health settings. This is the first criterion validity study of the instrument. The instrument is designed to identify specific health problems and needs, including psychosocial or cognition problems and issues related to functional decline. The interRAI Check-Up Self-Report is designed to be compatible with the clinician administered instruments in the interRAI suite of assessments, but the validity of the instrument against clinician ratings has not yet been established. We therefore sought to establish whether community health workers, rather than trained healthcare professionals could reliably administer the self-report instrument to older persons.MethodsWe evaluated the criterion validity of the self-report instrument through comparison to assessments completed by a clinician assessor. A total of 112 participants, aged 60 or older were recruited from 7 seniors clubs in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Each participant was assessed by one of two previously untrained, non-healthcare personnel using the Check-Up Self-report version and again by a trained assessor using the clinician version of the interRAI Check-Up within 48 h. Our analyses focused on the degree of agreement between the self-reported and clinician-rated versions of the Check-Up based on the simple or weighted kappa values for the two types of ratings. Binary variables used simple kappas, and ordinal variables with three or more levels were examined using weighted kappas with Fleiss-Cohen weights.ResultsBased on Cohen's Kappa values, we were able to establish that high levels of agreement existed between clinical assessors and lay interviewers, indicating that the instrument can be validly administered by community health workers without formal healthcare training. 13% of items had kappa values ranging between 0.10 and 0.39; 51% of items had kappa values between 0.4 and 0.69; and 36% of items had values of between 0.70 and 1.00.ConclusionOur findings indicate that there is potential for the Check-Up Self-Report instrument to be implemented in under-resourced health systems such as South Africa's.
| S-EPMC7391526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Proper transfer technique is associated with improved biomechanics and decreased pain and pathology. However, many users do not use proper technique, and appropriate assessment and training are needed to address these deficits. The transfer assessment instrument (TAI) 4.0 was designed to meet those needs and improve on past versions by removing the need for clinician training, shortening administration time, and simplifying question content. Objectives: Evaluate the psychometric properties of the TAI 4.0. Methods: A convenience sample of full-time wheelchair users was scored on multiple transfers by four raters to assess interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the TAI 4.0. Each user also was scored using a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: For 44 participants, the mean TAI 4.0 and VAS across all transfers were 7.58 ± 1.12 and 7.44 ± 1.78, respectively, and scores were significantly correlated (r = 0.52-0.7). VAS scores were more strongly influenced by the flight/landing and body setup phases of the transfer. There were no significant associations between TAI 4.0 score and demographics. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.80 to 0.85 for interrater reliability, 0.60 to 0.76 for intrarater reliability, and 0.55 to 0.76 for test-retest reliability. The minimum detectable change (MDC) for the total score ranged from 1.02 to 1.30. Conclusion: The TAI 4.0 provides reliable and valid quantitative assessment of an individual's transfer without the need for comprehensive training, as is the case with the TAI 3.0. The tool can be completed in 3 minutes (average) in a clinical setting with only a ruler and goniometer.
| S-EPMC6037322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ankle accelerometry allows for 24-hr data collection and improves data volume/integrity versus hip accelerometry. Using Actical ankle accelerometry, the purpose of this study was to (a) develop sensitive/specific thresholds, (b) examine validity/reliability, (c) compare new thresholds with those of the manufacturer, and (d) examine feasibility in a community sample (low-income, urban adolescent girls).Two studies were conducted with 6th- through 7th-grade girls (aged 10-14 years old): First was a laboratory study (n = 24), in which 2 Actical accelerometers were placed on the ankle and worn while measuring energy expenditure (Cosmed K4b2, metabolic equivalents [METs]) during 10 prescribed activities. Analyses included device equivalence reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], activity counts of 2 Acticals), criterion-related validity (correlation, activity counts and METs), and calculations of sensitivity, specificity, kappa, and receiver-operating characteristic curves for thresholds. The second was a free-living study (n = 459), in which an Actical was worn for more than 7 days on the ankle (full 24-hr days retained). Analyses included feasibility (frequencies, missing data) and paired t tests (new thresholds vs. those of the manufacturer).In the laboratory study, the Actical demonstrated reliability (ICC = .92) and validity (r = .81). Thresholds demonstrated sensitivity (91%), specificity (84%), kappa = .73 (p = .043), area under curve range = .81-.97. In the free-living study, 99.6% of participants wore the accelerometer; 84.1% had complete/valid data (mean = 5.7 days). Primary reasons for missing/invalid data included: improper programming/documentation (5.2%), failure to return device (5.0%), and wear-time ? 2 days (2.8%). The moderate-to-vigorous physical activity threshold (> 3,200 counts/minute) yielded 37.2 min/day, 2 to 4.5 times lower than that of the manufacturer's software (effect size = 0.74-4.05).Validity, reliability, and feasibility evidences support Actical ankle accelerometry to assess physical activity in community studies of adolescent girls. When comparing manufacturers' software versus new thresholds, a major difference was observed.
| S-EPMC4775231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aim: 'Reasoning 4 Change' (R4C) is a newly developed instrument, including four domains (D1-D4), to assess clinical practitioners' and students' clinical reasoning with a focus on clients' behaviour change in a physiotherapy context. To establish its use in education and research, its psychometric properties needed to be evaluated. The aim of the study was to generate criterion scores and evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a web-based version of the R4C instrument. Methods: Fourteen physiotherapy experts and 39 final-year physiotherapy students completed the R4C instrument and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT). Twelve experts and 17 students completed the R4C instrument on a second occasion. The R4C instrument was evaluated with regard to: internal consistency (five subscales of D1); test-retest reliability (D1-D4); inter-rater reliability (D2-D4); and construct validity in terms of convergent validity (D1.4, D2, D4). Criterion scores were generated based on the experts' responses to identify the scores of qualified practitioners' clinical reasoning abilities. Results: For the expert and student samples, the analyses demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α range: 0.67-0.91), satisfactory test-retest reliability (ICC range: 0.46-0.94) except for D3 for the experts and D4 for the students. The inter-rater reliability demonstrated excellent agreement within the expert group (ICC range: 0.94-1.0). The correlations between the R4C instrument and PABS-PT (r range: 0.06-0.76) supported acceptable construct validity. Conclusions: The web-based R4C instrument shows satisfactory psychometric properties and could be useful in education and research. The use of the instrument may contribute to a deeper understanding of physiotherapists' and students' clinical reasoning, valuable for curriculum development and improvements of competencies in clinical reasoning related to clients' behavioural change.
| S-EPMC6141557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and validate an instrument to assist in the systematization of perioperative nursing care in robotic surgery.MethodsMethodological study developed in four phases: content survey; textual elaboration; content validation by the group of expert judges and target audience; and elaboration of the electronic instrument layout.ResultsEleven expert judges and seven evaluators of the target audience participated. For validation, the Content Validity Index (CVI) was used with a 0.78 cutoff point. The instrument total CVI after evaluation was 0.90 by the expert judges and 0.88 by the target audience.ConclusionThe tool built was proved satisfactory for the systematization of perioperative nursing care. The instrument construction was based on the updated scientific literature and validated by the expert judges and target audience.
| S-EPMC10704656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA major barrier to improving perinatal mental health in Africa is the lack of locally validated tools for identifying probable cases of perinatal depression or for measuring changes in depression symptom severity. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the reliability and validity of instruments to assess perinatal depression in African settings.Methods and findingsOf 1,027 records identified through searching 7 electronic databases, we reviewed 126 full-text reports. We included 25 unique studies, which were disseminated in 26 journal articles and 1 doctoral dissertation. These enrolled 12,544 women living in nine different North and sub-Saharan African countries. Only three studies (12%) used instruments developed specifically for use in a given cultural setting. Most studies provided evidence of criterion-related validity (20 [80%]) or reliability (15 [60%]), while fewer studies provided evidence of construct validity, content validity, or internal structure. The Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS), assessed in 16 studies (64%), was the most frequently used instrument in our sample. Ten studies estimated the internal consistency of the EPDS (median estimated coefficient alpha, 0.84; interquartile range, 0.71-0.87). For the 14 studies that estimated sensitivity and specificity for the EPDS, we constructed 2 x 2 tables for each cut-off score. Using a bivariate random-effects model, we estimated a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.99) and a pooled specificity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-0.88) at a cut-off score of ? 9, with higher cut-off scores yielding greater specificity at the cost of lower sensitivity.ConclusionsThe EPDS can reliably and validly measure perinatal depression symptom severity or screen for probable postnatal depression in African countries, but more validation studies on other instruments are needed. In addition, more qualitative research is needed to adequately characterize local understandings of perinatal depression-like syndromes in different African contexts.
| S-EPMC3858316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC8033700 | biostudies-literature