Validation of the SYdney Shared and Evidence-based decision-Making test (SYStEM) among healthcare professionals

Q1 Nursing
Kat Leung , Lyndal Trevena , Christopher Roberts , Donna Waters
{"title":"Validation of the SYdney Shared and Evidence-based decision-Making test (SYStEM) among healthcare professionals","authors":"Kat Leung ,&nbsp;Lyndal Trevena ,&nbsp;Christopher Roberts ,&nbsp;Donna Waters","doi":"10.1016/j.hpe.2019.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Whilst competence in evidence-based practice (EBP) is a critical skill for healthcare professionals, there is a gap in the literature in the assessment of EBP. Current frameworks in Evidence-Based Practice education cite a five-step process (Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Integrate and Evaluate) yet many existing measures of competence focus on the first three, relying on self-report and cognitive testing, falling short of assessing skills. The Fresno Test has been validated for assessing the first three steps and the “Assessing Communication about Patient Preferences” tool is reliable in capturing the quality of information given by physicians in integrating evidence. The Evidence-Based Practice Implementation Scale is useful for the ‘evaluate’ step in the EBP process. We adapted components from all three of these tools to create the SYdney Shared and Evidence-based decision-Making test (SYStEM) in order to measure EBP and Shared Decision Making (SDM) competencies in the context of patient care. The aims of this study were to examine the internal structure, criterion and consequential validity of the SYStEM.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Data were available from 37 healthcare practitioners who completed the SYStEM online. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to determine the theoretical structure and a modified Angoff method to determine a minimum competence level for newly graduated health professionals.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The final 10-item SYStEM consisted of two subscales: ‘EBP knowledge’ and ‘SDM skills’ demonstrating good construct validity and reliability (α &gt; 0.74). The factorial validity of SYStEM was shown by all items loading significantly on their expected factors and a good fit to the data. Although the benchmark for passing the SYStEM was low, only 13/37 practitioners (35%) reached the minimum standard for EBP competence.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>This study provides preliminary evidence for the validity the SYStEM tool for measuring EBP competence amongst health graduates. Further large-scale validation of SYStEM is required.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93562,"journal":{"name":"Health professions education","volume":"5 4","pages":"Pages 352-364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hpe.2019.05.002","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health professions education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452301119300070","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

Purpose

Whilst competence in evidence-based practice (EBP) is a critical skill for healthcare professionals, there is a gap in the literature in the assessment of EBP. Current frameworks in Evidence-Based Practice education cite a five-step process (Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Integrate and Evaluate) yet many existing measures of competence focus on the first three, relying on self-report and cognitive testing, falling short of assessing skills. The Fresno Test has been validated for assessing the first three steps and the “Assessing Communication about Patient Preferences” tool is reliable in capturing the quality of information given by physicians in integrating evidence. The Evidence-Based Practice Implementation Scale is useful for the ‘evaluate’ step in the EBP process. We adapted components from all three of these tools to create the SYdney Shared and Evidence-based decision-Making test (SYStEM) in order to measure EBP and Shared Decision Making (SDM) competencies in the context of patient care. The aims of this study were to examine the internal structure, criterion and consequential validity of the SYStEM.

Method

Data were available from 37 healthcare practitioners who completed the SYStEM online. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to determine the theoretical structure and a modified Angoff method to determine a minimum competence level for newly graduated health professionals.

Results

The final 10-item SYStEM consisted of two subscales: ‘EBP knowledge’ and ‘SDM skills’ demonstrating good construct validity and reliability (α > 0.74). The factorial validity of SYStEM was shown by all items loading significantly on their expected factors and a good fit to the data. Although the benchmark for passing the SYStEM was low, only 13/37 practitioners (35%) reached the minimum standard for EBP competence.

Discussion

This study provides preliminary evidence for the validity the SYStEM tool for measuring EBP competence amongst health graduates. Further large-scale validation of SYStEM is required.

SYdney共享和循证决策测试(SYStEM)在医疗保健专业人员中的验证
目的虽然循证实践能力(EBP)是医疗保健专业人员的一项关键技能,但在EBP评估方面的文献存在空白。当前基于证据的实践教育框架引用了一个五步过程(询问、获取、评估、整合和评估),但许多现有的能力衡量方法侧重于前三个步骤,依赖于自我报告和认知测试,缺乏评估技能。弗雷斯诺测试在评估前三个步骤方面得到了验证,“评估患者偏好的沟通”工具在收集医生提供的信息质量方面是可靠的。循证实践实施量表对EBP过程中的“评估”步骤很有用。我们改编了这三个工具的组成部分,创建了悉尼共享和循证决策测试(系统),以衡量患者护理背景下的EBP和共享决策(SDM)能力。本研究的目的在于检视评鉴制度的内部结构、评鉴标准与结果效度。方法收集37名在线完成本系统的医疗从业人员的数据。我们进行了验证性因子分析来确定理论结构,并采用改进的Angoff方法来确定新毕业的卫生专业人员的最低能力水平。结果最终的10项系统由“EBP知识”和“SDM技能”两个子量表组成,具有良好的结构效度和信度(α >0.74)。系统的因子效度显示所有项目对其预期因子的负荷显著,并且与数据吻合良好。虽然通过该体系的基准很低,但只有13/37的从业人员(35%)达到EBP能力的最低标准。本研究为系统工具在卫生专业毕业生中EBP能力的有效性提供了初步证据。需要对系统进行进一步的大规模验证。
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
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 weeks
×
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