Validation of a short form of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index: The PES‐5

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Eileen T. Lake, Jennifer Gil, Lynne Moronski, Matthew D. Mchugh, Linda H. Aiken, Karen B. Lasater
{"title":"Validation of a short form of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index: The PES‐5","authors":"Eileen T. Lake, Jennifer Gil, Lynne Moronski, Matthew D. Mchugh, Linda H. Aiken, Karen B. Lasater","doi":"10.1002/nur.22388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES‐NWI) has been utilized for two decades globally to measure nurse work environments. Its 31 items in five domains present a substantial respondent burden, threatening survey response rates. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a short form: the PES‐5. We conducted a cross‐sectional, secondary analysis of survey data from nurses in 760 hospitals in six U.S. states in 2016 or 2019. One representative item per subscale was selected by highest item‐to‐subscale <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> from the original PES‐NWI publication. Five psychometric properties of the PES‐5 were evaluated. The reproduced structure of the full form was confirmed in the 2016 data by the highest <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> for the selected items. The unidimensional structure of the PES‐5 was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. The correlation between the composite values of the 28‐item and 5‐item versions was 0.94. The Cronbach's alpha reliability of the PES‐5 was &gt;0.80. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 1, <jats:italic>k</jats:italic>), which evaluates the stability of aggregated values when data are clustered, i.e., nurses are nested within hospitals, was &gt;0.80 in both datasets, demonstrating satisfactory aggregate properties. Construct validity was supported by the selected items being ranked highly in their respective subscales by an expert panel. Criterion validity was supported by an analysis of variance of the PES‐5 mean value across responses to a single‐item work environment measure. Similar patterns of relationships with other key variables were identified by statistically significant odds ratios in regression models predicting patient mortality from the PES‐5. The classification accuracy of the PES‐5 was high, with 88% of hospitals classified identically by both versions. The PES‐5 shows promise for measurement of nurses’ work environments while maximizing response rate by reducing participant burden.","PeriodicalId":54492,"journal":{"name":"Research in Nursing & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Nursing & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22388","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES‐NWI) has been utilized for two decades globally to measure nurse work environments. Its 31 items in five domains present a substantial respondent burden, threatening survey response rates. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a short form: the PES‐5. We conducted a cross‐sectional, secondary analysis of survey data from nurses in 760 hospitals in six U.S. states in 2016 or 2019. One representative item per subscale was selected by highest item‐to‐subscale R2 from the original PES‐NWI publication. Five psychometric properties of the PES‐5 were evaluated. The reproduced structure of the full form was confirmed in the 2016 data by the highest R2 for the selected items. The unidimensional structure of the PES‐5 was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. The correlation between the composite values of the 28‐item and 5‐item versions was 0.94. The Cronbach's alpha reliability of the PES‐5 was >0.80. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 1, k), which evaluates the stability of aggregated values when data are clustered, i.e., nurses are nested within hospitals, was >0.80 in both datasets, demonstrating satisfactory aggregate properties. Construct validity was supported by the selected items being ranked highly in their respective subscales by an expert panel. Criterion validity was supported by an analysis of variance of the PES‐5 mean value across responses to a single‐item work environment measure. Similar patterns of relationships with other key variables were identified by statistically significant odds ratios in regression models predicting patient mortality from the PES‐5. The classification accuracy of the PES‐5 was high, with 88% of hospitals classified identically by both versions. The PES‐5 shows promise for measurement of nurses’ work environments while maximizing response rate by reducing participant burden.
护理工作指数实践环境量表简表的验证:PES-5
二十年来,护理工作指数实践环境量表(PES-NWI)一直在全球范围内用于测量护士的工作环境。该量表包含五个领域的 31 个项目,给受访者带来了很大的负担,威胁到调查的回复率。本研究的目的是开发并验证一个简表:PES-5。我们对美国 6 个州 760 家医院的护士在 2016 年或 2019 年的调查数据进行了横断面二次分析。我们从 PES-NWI 的原始出版物中,根据最高的项目与分量表 R2,为每个分量表选择了一个具有代表性的项目。对 PES-5 的五个心理测量属性进行了评估。在 2016 年的数据中,所选项目的最高 R2 证实了全表的再现结构。通过确认性因素分析,证实了 PES-5 的单维结构。28 个项目和 5 个项目版本的综合值之间的相关性为 0.94。PES-5 的 Cronbach's alpha 信度为 0.80。类内相关系数(ICC 1,k)用于评估数据聚类(即护士嵌套在医院内)时汇总值的稳定性,两个数据集的类内相关系数均为 0.80,显示出令人满意的汇总特性。结构效度得到了专家小组的支持,所选项目在各自的子量表中排名靠前。PES-5 均值在单项工作环境测量中的方差分析支持了标准效度。通过 PES-5 预测患者死亡率的回归模型中具有统计学意义的几率比,确定了与其他关键变量的类似关系模式。PES-5 的分类准确性很高,两个版本对 88% 的医院进行了相同的分类。PES-5显示了测量护士工作环境的前景,同时通过减轻参与者的负担最大限度地提高了应答率。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research in Nursing & Health ( RINAH ) is a peer-reviewed general research journal devoted to publication of a wide range of research that will inform the practice of nursing and other health disciplines. The editors invite reports of research describing problems and testing interventions related to health phenomena, health care and self-care, clinical organization and administration; and the testing of research findings in practice. Research protocols are considered if funded in a peer-reviewed process by an agency external to the authors’ home institution and if the work is in progress. Papers on research methods and techniques are appropriate if they go beyond what is already generally available in the literature and include description of successful use of the method. Theory papers are accepted if each proposition is supported by research evidence. Systematic reviews of the literature are reviewed if PRISMA guidelines are followed. Letters to the editor commenting on published articles are welcome.
×
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