Comparison of content validity indices for clinical nursing research: A practical case.

Enfermeria clinica (English Edition) Pub Date : 2025-06-05 DOI:10.1016/j.enfcle.2025.502214

Paulina Hurtado-Arenas, Miguel R Guevara, Víctor M González-Chordá

{"title":"Comparison of content validity indices for clinical nursing research: A practical case.","authors":"Paulina Hurtado-Arenas, Miguel R Guevara, Víctor M González-Chordá","doi":"10.1016/j.enfcle.2025.502214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare techniques to analyze the content validity of measurement instruments applicable to nursing care research through a practical case.Method: Secondary study derived from validating the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety (HSOPS) in a Chilean hospital. The study setting was hospital care, with a population focused on nursing staff and a sample of 12 expert nurses who are teachers or have clinical experience in quality and patient safety. Design and content validity test based on three phases: identification of primary methods, calculation of methods, comparison of similarities and differences of methods.Results: Lawsche, Tristan-López, Lynn, Polit et al. methods are similar. The modified kappa value is similar to the content validity index (I-CVI) value, with a slight variation when penalizing the value by probability according to chance. There are significant differences between all methods and Hernández Nieto's content validity coefficient (CVC).Conclusions: The Polit et al. method is more rigorous, and its mathematical formulation is better justified, providing solidity to clinical nursing research. Furthermore, the Hernandez-Nieto method is suggested when validating more than one characteristic.","PeriodicalId":72917,"journal":{"name":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","volume":" ","pages":"502214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcle.2025.502214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare techniques to analyze the content validity of measurement instruments applicable to nursing care research through a practical case.

Method: Secondary study derived from validating the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety (HSOPS) in a Chilean hospital. The study setting was hospital care, with a population focused on nursing staff and a sample of 12 expert nurses who are teachers or have clinical experience in quality and patient safety. Design and content validity test based on three phases: identification of primary methods, calculation of methods, comparison of similarities and differences of methods.

Results: Lawsche, Tristan-López, Lynn, Polit et al. methods are similar. The modified kappa value is similar to the content validity index (I-CVI) value, with a slight variation when penalizing the value by probability according to chance. There are significant differences between all methods and Hernández Nieto's content validity coefficient (CVC).

Conclusions: The Polit et al. method is more rigorous, and its mathematical formulation is better justified, providing solidity to clinical nursing research. Furthermore, the Hernandez-Nieto method is suggested when validating more than one characteristic.

查看原文本刊更多论文

临床护理研究内容效度指标的比较：一个实际案例。

目的：通过一个实际案例，比较分析适用于护理研究的测量工具的内容效度。方法：二级研究来源于对智利一家医院患者安全调查（hsop）的验证。研究环境是医院护理，人口集中在护理人员和12名专家护士，他们是教师或在质量和患者安全方面有临床经验。设计和内容效度检验基于三个阶段：确定主要方法、计算方法、比较方法的异同点。结果：Lawsche， Tristan-López, Lynn， Polit等方法相似。修正后的kappa值与内容效度指数（I-CVI）值相似，但在根据偶然性对该值进行概率惩罚时略有变化。各方法与Hernández涅托内容效度系数（CVC）差异显著。结论：Polit等方法更为严谨，其数学公式更合理，为临床护理研究提供了坚实依据。此外，在验证多个特征时，建议使用Hernandez-Nieto方法。

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

Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)

自引率

0.00%

发文量