Professional autonomy among Registered Nurses-Validation of the translation of the Dempster Practice Behaviour Scale and survey results.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Nursing Open Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1002/nop2.2185
Katja Pursio, Päivi Kankkunen, Tarja Kvist
{"title":"Professional autonomy among Registered Nurses-Validation of the translation of the Dempster Practice Behaviour Scale and survey results.","authors":"Katja Pursio, Päivi Kankkunen, Tarja Kvist","doi":"10.1002/nop2.2185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To test the psychometric properties of the Finnish version of the Dempster Practice Behaviour Scale and explore nurses' professional autonomy along with which characteristics are related to it.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An instrument validation and a descriptive cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The web-based survey was conducted in September 2021 at two university hospitals in Finland. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to explore the factor structure of the modified instrument, while Cronbach's α coefficients were calculated to determine the reliability of the scale. Descriptive univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine Registered Nurses' professional autonomy. The study followed STROBE guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the validation process, the 30 items of the Dempster Practice Behaviour Scale were reduced to 25 items. The S-CVI/Ave for the translated scale was 0.94. When one additional item was omitted from the EFA, the results supported five factors, which explained 45.9% of the total variance. The mean overall autonomy score was 3.63 out of 5, with readiness and empowerment the subscales with the highest and lowest, respectively, mean values. The linear regression models showed that age, nursing experience, unit type, education, shift, and perceptions of the importance of professional autonomy were related to the subscales describing professional autonomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The psychometric testing provided evidence that the translated instrument was reliable. Nurses assessed that they are skilled professionals who are accountable for their actions. However, they experienced rather low levels of professional autonomy in empowerment and valuation. Health care organizations should consider this through authentic leadership and, thus, possibly strengthen professional autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48570,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11125569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.2185","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

Aim: To test the psychometric properties of the Finnish version of the Dempster Practice Behaviour Scale and explore nurses' professional autonomy along with which characteristics are related to it.

Design: An instrument validation and a descriptive cross-sectional study.

Methods: The web-based survey was conducted in September 2021 at two university hospitals in Finland. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to explore the factor structure of the modified instrument, while Cronbach's α coefficients were calculated to determine the reliability of the scale. Descriptive univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine Registered Nurses' professional autonomy. The study followed STROBE guidelines.

Results: During the validation process, the 30 items of the Dempster Practice Behaviour Scale were reduced to 25 items. The S-CVI/Ave for the translated scale was 0.94. When one additional item was omitted from the EFA, the results supported five factors, which explained 45.9% of the total variance. The mean overall autonomy score was 3.63 out of 5, with readiness and empowerment the subscales with the highest and lowest, respectively, mean values. The linear regression models showed that age, nursing experience, unit type, education, shift, and perceptions of the importance of professional autonomy were related to the subscales describing professional autonomy.

Conclusion: The psychometric testing provided evidence that the translated instrument was reliable. Nurses assessed that they are skilled professionals who are accountable for their actions. However, they experienced rather low levels of professional autonomy in empowerment and valuation. Health care organizations should consider this through authentic leadership and, thus, possibly strengthen professional autonomy.

注册护士的专业自主性--验证 Dempster 实践行为量表的翻译和调查结果。
目的:测试芬兰版邓普斯特实践行为量表的心理测量特性,探讨护士的专业自主性以及与之相关的特征:设计:工具验证和描述性横断面研究:2021年9月,在芬兰的两所大学医院进行了网络调查。采用探索性因子分析(EFA)来探索修改后工具的因子结构,同时计算 Cronbach's α 系数来确定量表的可靠性。对注册护士的专业自主性进行了描述性单变量和多变量分析。研究遵循了 STROBE 准则:在验证过程中,Dempster 实践行为量表的 30 个项目被缩减为 25 个项目。翻译后的量表的 S-CVI/Ave 为 0.94。在 EFA 中省略了一个额外的项目后,结果支持五个因子,解释了总方差的 45.9%。自主性总分的平均值为 3.63(满分 5 分),平均值最高和最低的分量表分别是 "准备就绪 "和 "授权"。线性回归模型显示,年龄、护理经验、科室类型、教育程度、轮班和对专业自主重要性的看法与描述专业自主的分量表相关:心理测试证明了翻译工具的可靠性。护士们认为自己是熟练的专业人员,要对自己的行为负责。然而,她们在授权和评价方面的专业自主程度较低。医疗机构应通过真正的领导力来考虑这一点,从而有可能加强专业自主性。
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 Open
Nursing Open Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
298
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Open is a peer reviewed open access journal that welcomes articles on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy. We aim to publish articles that contribute to the art and science of nursing and which have a positive impact on health either locally, nationally, regionally or globally
×
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