Dataset Information

Development and validation of the medical professionals resilience scale.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Most of the resilience scales were developed for the non-medical population, therefore the purpose of this study was developing and validating a resilience scale for medical professionals - namely Medical Professionals Resilience Scale (MeRS).

Methods

A questionnaire development and validation study was conducted. The resilience domains and items were identified and generated through a literature review. The content validation was carried out by content experts and the content validity index (CVI) was calculated. The face validation was performed by medical officers and the face validity index (FVI) was calculated. The final MeRS was administered to 167 medical officers, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis were performed to assess MeRS's factorial structure and internal consistency.

Results

Four domains with 89 items of medical professionals' resilience were developed. Following that, the content and face validation was conducted, and a total of 41-items remained for construct validation. EFA extracted four factors, namely growth, control, involvement, and resourceful, with a total of 37 items. The items' CVI and FVI values were more than 0.80. The final MeRS's items had factor loading values ranged from 0.41 to 0.76, and the Cronbach's alpha values of the resilience domains ranged from 0.72 to 0.89.

Conclusions

MeRS is a promising scale for measuring medical professionals' resilience as it showed good psychometric properties. This study provided validity evidence in terms of content, response process, and internal structure that supported the validity of MeRS in the measurement of resilience domains among medical professionals.

SUBMITTER: Rahman MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8139025 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Programs encouraging medical student research such as Scholarly Concentrations (SC) are increasing nationally. However, there are few validated measures of mentoring quality tailored to medical students. We sought to modify and validate a mentoring scale for use in medical student research experiences.SC faculty created a scale evaluating how medical students assess mentors in the research setting. A validated graduate student scale of mentorship, the Ideal Mentor Scale, was modified by selecting 10 of the 34 original items most relevant for medical students and adding an item on project ownership. We administered this 11-item assessment to second year medical students in the Johns Hopkins University SC Program from 2011 to 2016, and performed exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation to determine included items and subscales. We correlate overall mentoring quality scale and subscales with four student outcomes: 'very satisfied' with mentor, 'more likely' to do future research, project accepted at a national meeting, and highest SC faculty rating of student project.Five hundred ninety-eight students responded (87% response rate). After factor analysis, we eliminated three items producing a final scale of overall mentoring quality (8 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) with three subscales: advocacy, responsiveness, and assistance. The overall mentoring quality scale was significantly associated with all four student outcomes, including mentor satisfaction: OR [(95% CI), p-value] 1.66 [(1.53-1.79), p < 0.001]; likelihood of future research: OR 1.06 [(1.03-1.09), p < 0.001]; abstract submission to national meetings: OR 1.05 [(1.02-1.08), p = 0.002]; and SC faculty rating of student projects: OR 1.08 [(1.03-1.14), p = 0.004]. Each subscale also correlated with overall mentor satisfaction, and the strongest relationship of each subscale was seen with 'mentor advocacy.'Mentor quality can be reliably measured and associates with important medical student scholarly outcomes. Given the lack of tools, this scale can be used by other SC Programs to advance medical students' scholarship.

Project description:BackgroundThe last few decades have witnessed significant advances in the development of digital tools and applications for mental health care. Despite growing evidence for their effectiveness, acceptance and use of these tools in clinical practice remain low. Hence, a validated and easy-to-use instrument for assessing professionals' readiness to adopt eMental health (EMH) is necessary to gain further insights into the process of EMH adoption and facilitate future research on this topic.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to develop and validate an instrument for assessing mental health care professionals' readiness to adopt EMH.MethodsItem generation was guided by literature and inputs from mental health care professionals and experts in survey development. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted on an initial set of 29 items completed by a sample of mental health care professionals (N=432); thereafter, the scale was reduced to 15 items in an iterative process. The factor structure thus obtained was subsequently tested using a confirmatory factor analysis with a second sample of mental health care professionals (N=363). The internal consistency, convergent validity, and predictive validity of the eMental Health Adoption Readiness (eMHAR) Scale were assessed.ResultsExploratory factor analysis resulted in a 3-factor solution with 15 items. The factors were analyzed and labeled as perceived benefits and applicability of EMH, EMH proactive innovation, and EMH self-efficacy. These factors were confirmed through a confirmatory factor analysis. The total scale and subscales showed a good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.73-.88) along with acceptable convergent and predictive relationships with related constructs.ConclusionsThe constructed eMHAR Scale showed a conceptually interpretable 3-factor structure having satisfactory characteristics and relationships with relevant concepts. Its ease of use allows for quick acquisition of data that can contribute to understanding and facilitating the process of adoption of EMH by clinical professionals.

Project description:BackgroundWe conducted three studies to validate the Polish version of the BRS. Our objectives are as follows: first, to explore the dimensional structure of the scale and to determine the internal consistency (study 1: n = 1022); second, to determine the congruent and divergent validity of the BRS (study 2: n = 242); and third, to examine sensitivity of the BRS scale to detect high-risk population (study 3: n = 602).MethodsTo explore the dimensional structure of the scale, we tested a two-factor model with one factor for positively worded items and one factor for negatively worded items. To determine the congruent and divergent validity of the BRS, we analysed correlations among BRS and resilience, positive mental health, and with positive and negative religious coping. We used Student's t-test to examine sensitivity of the BRS scale to detect a high-risk population.ResultsBased on the CFA, a bivariate model was confirmed for items positively and negatively formulated with a higher order factor, which indicates the homogeneity of the scale, similar to the analyses carried out for their language versions confirming this type of homogeneity of the scale. The internal compatibility assessment based on Cronbach's Alpha and McDonald's Omega is good (0.88). Our analyses intended to test convergent and divergent validity, and showed that the BRS results are significantly related to a questionnaire measuring similar constructions. Our validation studies also provided important diagnoses regarding BRS "sensitivity", indicating that groups with higher stress levels achieved lower BRS resilience results.ConclusionThe results of our research indicate that the Polish version of the BRS should be considered to be a reliable and valid research tool. The Polish version of BRS is a reliable and accurate way of measuring resilience as the ability to bounce back from adversity and overcome various challenges or stressors. This scale may be used for both research and intervention purposes.

Project description:BackgroundThe family environment is important for explaining individual health behaviour. While previous research mostly focused on influences among family members and dyadic interactions (parent-child), the purpose of this study was to develop a new measure, the Family Health Climate Scale (FHC-Scale), using a family-based approach. The FHC is an attribute of the whole family and describes an aspect of the family environment that is related to health and health behaviour. Specifically, a questionnaire measuring the FHC (a) for nutrition (FHC-NU) and (b) for activity behaviour (FHC-PA) was developed and validated.MethodsIn Study 1 (N=787) the FHC scales were refined and validated. The sample was randomly divided into two subsamples. With random sample I exploratory factor analyses were conducted and items were selected according to their psychometric quality. In a second step, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using the random sample II. In Study 2 (N=210 parental couples) the construct validity was tested by correlating the FHC to self-determined motivation of healthy eating and physical activity as well as the families' food environment and joint physical activities.ResultsExploratory factor analyses with random sample I (Study 1) revealed a four (FHC-NU) and a three (FHC-PA) factor model. These models were cross-validated with random sample II and demonstrated an acceptable fit [FHC-PA: χ(2)=222.69, df=74, p<.01; χ(2)/df=3.01; CFI=.96; SRMR=.04; RMSEA=.07, CI .06/.08; FHC-NU: χ(2)=278.30, df=113, p<.01, χ(2)/df=2.46, CFI=.96; SRMR=.04; RMSEA=.06, CI .05/.07]. The perception of FHC correlated (p<.01) with the intrinsic motivation of healthy eating (r=.42) and physical activity (r=.56). Moreover, parental perceptions of FHC-NU correlated with household soft drink availability (r=-.31) and perceptions of FHC-PA with the frequency of joint physical activities with the child (r=.51). These patterns were found on the intraindividual and interindividual level.ConclusionsTwo valid instruments measuring the FHC within families were developed. The use of different informants' ratings demonstrated that the FHC is a family level variable. The results confirm the high relevance of the FHC for individuals' health behaviour. The FHC and the measurement instruments are useful for examining health-related aspects of the family environment.