Reliability and Validity of Measures Commonly Utilized to Assess Nurse Well-Being.

Abstract

Background: A healthy nursing workforce is vital to ensuring that patients are provided quality care. Assessing nurses' well-being and related factors requires routine evaluations from health system leaders that leverage brief psychometrically sound measures. To date, measures used to assess nurses' well-being have primarily been psychometrically tested among other clinicians or nurses working in specific clinical practice settings rather than in large, representative, heterogeneous samples of nurses.

Objectives: This study aimed to psychometrically test measures frequently used to evaluate factors linked to nurse well-being in a heterogeneous sample of nurses within a large academic health system.

Methods: This cross-sectional, survey-based study used a convenience sample of nurses working across acute care practice settings. A total of 177 nurses completed measures, which included the Professional Quality of Life, the short form of the Professional Quality of Life measure, the two-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the five-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index, the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale, and the single-item Mini-Z. Internal reliability and convergent validity were assessed for each measure.

Results: All the measures were found to be reliable. Brief measures used to assess domains of well-being demonstrated validity with longer measures, as evident by significant correlation coefficients.

Discussion: This study provides support for the reliability and validity of measures commonly used to assess well-being in a diverse sample of nurses working across acute care settings. Data from routine assessments of the nursing workforce hold the potential to guide the implementation and evaluation of interventions capable of promoting workplace well-being. Assessments should include psychometrically sound, low-burden measures, such as those evaluated in this study.