Psychometric Properties of Chinese Version of the Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (C-BEDA) Tool.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2024-11-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S477701
Rong-Rong Huang, Yu-Sheng Xie, Gui-Ru Chen, Zhao-Qing Liu
{"title":"Psychometric Properties of Chinese Version of the Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (C-BEDA) Tool.","authors":"Rong-Rong Huang, Yu-Sheng Xie, Gui-Ru Chen, Zhao-Qing Liu","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S477701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (BEDA) tool is used to measure barriers to the disclosure of medical errors by healthcare professionals. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the BEDA (C-BEDA).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The culture of disclosure and transparency in response to medical errors has been recommended in recent years. However, there are no relevant assessment tools for measuring barriers to disclosing medical errors in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The C-BEDA tool underwent translation, back translation, cross-cultural adaptation in a pilot study. It was tested with 1254 healthcare professionals in Guizhou and Sichuan Provinces, China. The content validity index (CVI) was used to evaluate the content validity of the C-BEDA, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate its structural validity. The Cronbach's α coefficient and test-retest reliability were evaluated to determine its reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three factors were extracted by EFA that explained 65.892% of the total variance of the C-BEDA tool. CFA showed a good fit for a three-factor structure with acceptable values: goodness-of-fit index=0.939; adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.911; incremental fit index=0.967; comparative fit index=0.967; partial least squares path modeling for confirmatory factor analysis=0.735; and root mean square error of approximation=0.058. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the average scale-level content validity index was 0.98. The Cronbach's α coefficient (0.909) and test-retest reliability (0.86) were acceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The C-BEDA toolis a valid and reliable tool for assessing the extent of barriers to error disclosure among Chinese healthcare professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"17 ","pages":"2623-2634"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S477701","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (BEDA) tool is used to measure barriers to the disclosure of medical errors by healthcare professionals. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the BEDA (C-BEDA).

Background: The culture of disclosure and transparency in response to medical errors has been recommended in recent years. However, there are no relevant assessment tools for measuring barriers to disclosing medical errors in China.

Methods: The C-BEDA tool underwent translation, back translation, cross-cultural adaptation in a pilot study. It was tested with 1254 healthcare professionals in Guizhou and Sichuan Provinces, China. The content validity index (CVI) was used to evaluate the content validity of the C-BEDA, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate its structural validity. The Cronbach's α coefficient and test-retest reliability were evaluated to determine its reliability.

Results: Three factors were extracted by EFA that explained 65.892% of the total variance of the C-BEDA tool. CFA showed a good fit for a three-factor structure with acceptable values: goodness-of-fit index=0.939; adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.911; incremental fit index=0.967; comparative fit index=0.967; partial least squares path modeling for confirmatory factor analysis=0.735; and root mean square error of approximation=0.058. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the average scale-level content validity index was 0.98. The Cronbach's α coefficient (0.909) and test-retest reliability (0.86) were acceptable.

Conclusion: The C-BEDA toolis a valid and reliable tool for assessing the extent of barriers to error disclosure among Chinese healthcare professionals.

错误披露障碍评估(C-BEDA)工具中文版的心理测量特性。
目的:错误披露障碍评估(BEDA)工具用于测量医护人员披露医疗错误的障碍。本研究旨在评估中文版 BEDA(C-BEDA)的心理测量学特性:背景:近年来,针对医疗事故的披露和透明度文化一直受到推荐。背景:近年来,针对医疗事故的披露和透明文化一直被推荐使用,但在中国还没有相关的评估工具来测量披露医疗事故的障碍:方法:C-BEDA 工具在试点研究中经过了翻译、回译和跨文化调整。在中国贵州省和四川省对 1254 名医护人员进行了测试。内容效度指数(CVI)用于评价 C-BEDA 的内容效度,探索性因子分析(EFA)和确认性因子分析(CFA)用于评价其结构效度。对 C-BEDA 的信度进行了 Cronbach's α 系数和测试-再测信度评估:结果:EFA 提取了三个因子,解释了 C-BEDA 工具总方差的 65.892%。CFA显示三因素结构拟合良好,其值可接受:拟合优度指数=0.939;调整后拟合优度指数=0.911;增量拟合指数=0.967;比较拟合指数=0.967;偏最小二乘路径模型确认性因素分析=0.735;均方根近似误差=0.058。项目级内容效度指数在 0.86 至 1.00 之间,量表级内容效度指数平均为 0.98。Cronbach'sα系数(0.909)和重复测试信度(0.86)均可接受:结论:C-BEDA 工具是评估中国医护人员错误信息披露障碍程度的有效而可靠的工具。
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
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Public and community health Policy and law Preventative and predictive healthcare Risk and hazard management Epidemiology, detection and screening Lifestyle and diet modification Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs Health and safety and occupational health Healthcare services provision Health literacy and education Advertising and promotion of health issues Health economic evaluations and resource management Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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