Psychometric Properties of the Lactation Assessment and Comprehensive Intervention Tool (LAT).

IF 2.4 Q1 NURSING
Julie Grady, Anna Blair, Kajsa Brimdyr, Karin Cadwell
{"title":"Psychometric Properties of the Lactation Assessment and Comprehensive Intervention Tool (LAT).","authors":"Julie Grady, Anna Blair, Kajsa Brimdyr, Karin Cadwell","doi":"10.3390/nursrep14040300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the short- and long-term acknowledged benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and their infants, worldwide rates trail behind international goals. Prior research confirms that breastfeeding is a nurse sensitive indicator and that problems with latching the baby and painful breastfeeding rank high among the reasons given for not continuing to breastfeed. The Lactation Assessment Tool (LAT<sup>TM</sup>) was previously evaluated in a study conducted in Latvia by nurse midwives. Use of the LAT to assess breastfeeding and suggesting corrective interventions were shown to decrease pain and promote healing in traumatized nipples. The inter-rater reliability for that study was by test/re-test amongst participating researcher midwives. The aim of the current study is to expand the understanding of LAT inter-rater reliability to include novice and expert assessors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sample of twenty participants, including both novices (nine nursing students) and 11 self-identified experts, assessed four videos of breastfeeding dyads using the assessment tool, the LAT. Novice participants received a 2 h training session before final tool assessment. Each video was viewed three times, with a 3 min pause between viewings. All elements of the LAT that could be visually evaluated were included, with each element appearing in at least two of the videos.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Acceptable internal consistency of the LAT tool was found, with Cronbach's alpha measuring 0.799, 0.740, 0.756 and 0.735 for each video, respectively. The reliability of the novice assessors improved over the course of the four videos, from 0.484 and 0.610 to 0.714 and 0.711. All of the experts had Cronbach's alpha numbers that were acceptable, ranging from 0.769 to 1.00.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results indicate that experts perform much better using the tool than trained novices. However, the subsequent use of the tool resulted in the last two video assessments having an acceptable measure for the trained novice group. The LAT is a reliable tool for trained novices and experts to assess breastfeeding positioning and latch.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"14 4","pages":"4119-4128"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11678466/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the short- and long-term acknowledged benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and their infants, worldwide rates trail behind international goals. Prior research confirms that breastfeeding is a nurse sensitive indicator and that problems with latching the baby and painful breastfeeding rank high among the reasons given for not continuing to breastfeed. The Lactation Assessment Tool (LATTM) was previously evaluated in a study conducted in Latvia by nurse midwives. Use of the LAT to assess breastfeeding and suggesting corrective interventions were shown to decrease pain and promote healing in traumatized nipples. The inter-rater reliability for that study was by test/re-test amongst participating researcher midwives. The aim of the current study is to expand the understanding of LAT inter-rater reliability to include novice and expert assessors.

Methods: A convenience sample of twenty participants, including both novices (nine nursing students) and 11 self-identified experts, assessed four videos of breastfeeding dyads using the assessment tool, the LAT. Novice participants received a 2 h training session before final tool assessment. Each video was viewed three times, with a 3 min pause between viewings. All elements of the LAT that could be visually evaluated were included, with each element appearing in at least two of the videos.

Results: Acceptable internal consistency of the LAT tool was found, with Cronbach's alpha measuring 0.799, 0.740, 0.756 and 0.735 for each video, respectively. The reliability of the novice assessors improved over the course of the four videos, from 0.484 and 0.610 to 0.714 and 0.711. All of the experts had Cronbach's alpha numbers that were acceptable, ranging from 0.769 to 1.00.

Conclusions: Results indicate that experts perform much better using the tool than trained novices. However, the subsequent use of the tool resulted in the last two video assessments having an acceptable measure for the trained novice group. The LAT is a reliable tool for trained novices and experts to assess breastfeeding positioning and latch.

哺乳评估和综合干预工具(LAT)的心理测量特性。
背景:尽管母乳喂养对母亲及其婴儿具有公认的短期和长期益处,但世界范围内的母乳喂养率落后于国际目标。先前的研究证实,母乳喂养是一个护士敏感的指标,而婴儿被锁住和母乳喂养疼痛的问题在不继续母乳喂养的原因中名列前茅。哺乳评估工具(LATTM)先前在拉脱维亚由助产士护士进行的一项研究中进行了评估。使用LAT来评估母乳喂养并建议纠正干预措施已被证明可以减少疼痛并促进创伤乳头的愈合。该研究的内部信度是通过在参与研究的助产士中进行测试/再测试来确定的。本研究的目的是扩大对LAT评估者间信度的理解,包括新手和专家评估者。方法:方便抽样20名参与者,其中包括新手(9名护生)和11名自认为是专家的人,使用评估工具LAT对4个母乳喂养的视频进行评估。新参与者在最终工具评估之前接受了2小时的培训。每个视频被观看三次,每次观看之间有3分钟的暂停。LAT中所有可以直观评价的元素都被包括在内,每个元素至少出现在两个视频中。结果:LAT工具的内部一致性可以接受,每个视频的Cronbach’s alpha值分别为0.799、0.740、0.756和0.735。在观看四段视频的过程中,新手评估者的可靠性从0.484和0.610提高到0.714和0.711。所有的专家都有一个可以接受的克朗巴赫alpha值,范围从0.769到1.00。结论:结果表明,专家在使用该工具时的表现比训练有素的新手要好得多。然而,该工具的后续使用导致最后两个视频评估对训练有素的新手组有一个可接受的措施。对于训练有素的新手和专家来说,LAT是评估母乳喂养定位和锁乳的可靠工具。
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
Nursing Reports
Nursing Reports NURSING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.
×
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