Construct Validity Testing of the Provider Co-Management Index to Measure Shared Care in Provider Dyads.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Nursing Research Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000719
Allison A Norful, Andrew Dierkes, Krystyna de Jacq, Katherine C Brewer
{"title":"Construct Validity Testing of the Provider Co-Management Index to Measure Shared Care in Provider Dyads.","authors":"Allison A Norful, Andrew Dierkes, Krystyna de Jacq, Katherine C Brewer","doi":"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-management encompasses the dyadic process between two healthcare providers. The Provider Co-Management Index (PCMI) was initially developed as a 20-item instrument across three theory-informed subscales.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to establish construct validity of the PCMI with a sample of primary care providers through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants randomly selected from the IQVIA database across New York State. Mail surveys were used to acquire a minimum of 300 responses for split sample factor analyses. The first subsample (derivation sample) was used to explore factorial structure by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. A second (validation) sample was used to confirm the emerged factorial structure using confirmatory factor analysis. We performed iterative analysis and calculated good fit indices to determine the best-fit model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 333 responses included in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha was high for a three-item per dimension scale within a one-factor model. The instrument was named PCMI-9 to indicate the shorter version length.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study established the construct validity of an instrument that scales the co-management of patients by two providers. The final instrument includes nine items on a single factor using a 4-point, Likert-type scale. Additional research is needed to establish discriminant validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":49723,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":"248-254"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000719","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Co-management encompasses the dyadic process between two healthcare providers. The Provider Co-Management Index (PCMI) was initially developed as a 20-item instrument across three theory-informed subscales.

Objective: This study aimed to establish construct validity of the PCMI with a sample of primary care providers through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants randomly selected from the IQVIA database across New York State. Mail surveys were used to acquire a minimum of 300 responses for split sample factor analyses. The first subsample (derivation sample) was used to explore factorial structure by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. A second (validation) sample was used to confirm the emerged factorial structure using confirmatory factor analysis. We performed iterative analysis and calculated good fit indices to determine the best-fit model.

Results: There were 333 responses included in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha was high for a three-item per dimension scale within a one-factor model. The instrument was named PCMI-9 to indicate the shorter version length.

Discussion: This study established the construct validity of an instrument that scales the co-management of patients by two providers. The final instrument includes nine items on a single factor using a 4-point, Likert-type scale. Additional research is needed to establish discriminant validity.

测试 "医疗服务提供者共同管理指数 "的结构有效性,以衡量医疗服务提供者二人组中的共同护理。
背景:共同管理包括两个医疗服务提供者之间的合作过程。医疗服务提供者共同管理指数(PCMI)最初是作为一个包含 20 个项目的工具而开发的,其中包含三个基于理论的子量表:本研究旨在通过探索性和确认性因素分析,在初级医疗服务提供者样本中建立 PCMI 的构建有效性:我们对从纽约州 IQVIA 数据库中随机抽取的全科医师、执业护士和助理医师进行了横断面调查。通过邮寄调查至少获得了 300 份回复,以便进行分离样本因子分析。第一个子样本(衍生样本)用于通过进行探索性因子分析来探索因子结构。第二个子样本(验证样本)用于通过确认性因子分析确认已出现的因子结构。我们进行了迭代分析,并计算了拟合指数,以确定最佳拟合模型:共有 333 个回答被纳入分析。对于单因素模型中每个维度 3 个项目的量表而言,Cronbach's alpha 很高。该量表被命名为 PCMI-9,以表示较短的版本长度:本研究确定了一种工具的构建效度,该工具可对两名医疗服务提供者共同管理患者的情况进行评分。最终的工具包括 9 个项目,采用李克特(Likert)式 4 点量表的单因子。还需要进行更多的研究来确定判别效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nursing Research
Nursing Research 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Research is a peer-reviewed journal celebrating over 60 years as the most sought-after nursing resource; it offers more depth, more detail, and more of what today''s nurses demand. Nursing Research covers key issues, including health promotion, human responses to illness, acute care nursing research, symptom management, cost-effectiveness, vulnerable populations, health services, and community-based nursing studies. Each issue highlights the latest research techniques, quantitative and qualitative studies, and new state-of-the-art methodological strategies, including information not yet found in textbooks. Expert commentaries and briefs are also included. In addition to 6 issues per year, Nursing Research from time to time publishes supplemental content not found anywhere else.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信