Validation of Anxiety by Brazilian Nurses

N. Oliveira, T. Chianca
{"title":"Validation of Anxiety by Brazilian Nurses","authors":"N. Oliveira, T. Chianca","doi":"10.1111/J.1744-618X.2003.001_9.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE \n \nTo validate the nursing diagnosis of anxiety as applied by expert Brazilian nurses and clinicians using the NANDA defining characteristics translated into Portuguese, and to compare their judgment. \n \n \n \nMETHODS \n \nA descriptive, exploratory, and comparative study was conducted using the Diagnostic Content Validation (DCV) model. A convenience sample of 120 nurses familiar with nursing diagnoses answered a semistructured questionnaire that included demographic data, the definition, and a list of defining characteristics of anxiety. Three defining characteristics of the nursing diagnosis fear were added to the list as distractors. Subjects were asked to rate each defining characteristic on a scale from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic). Descriptive analysis was used to identify the nurse experts and clinicians. Assigned weights were determined for each characteristic: 1 = 0, 2 = 0.25, 3 = 0.50, 4 = 0.75, and 5 = 1. Variance analysis using F statistics to compare averages and chi-squares for frequency distribution were applied. The defining characteristics with weight ratios >.80 were considered critical, those with weight ratios >.50 and <.80 were noncritical, and those defining characteristics with weight ratios of <.50 were not considered representative. An overall DCV score was obtained by summing individual scores and dividing by the total number of defining characteristics. Comparative analysis was used to verify differences in expert and clinician judgments using significant differences analysis. \n \n \n \nFINDINGS \n \nAmong 120 nurses, 51 (44%) were expert nurses and 69 (58%) had expertise by caring for people with anxiety. Three fourths (76%) of the expert nurses and 75% of the clinicians considered the NANDA definition appropriate. Judgment of both groups of nurses was equivanent (p= .93). Experts classified 8 (11%) defining characteristics as critical, but only 2 (3%)—anxious, fidgeting—were judged critical by both expert nurses and clinicians. Two defining characteristics (increased tension, preoccupation) of the 8 had statistically different scores between the two groups. The other defining characteristics were statistically similar. A total DCV score of 0.67 ± 0.10 was obtained from expert nurses and 0.65 ± 0.10 from clinicians (nonsignificant). \n \n \n \nDISCUSSION \n \nAnxiety is a common and frequent manifestation and a nursing concept identified and recognized by Brazilian nurses who considered it clearly defined and established by NANDA. Both groups of Brazilian nurses judged signs and symptoms of anxiety in a very similar way. \n \n \n \nCONCLUSIONS \n \nAccording to Brazilian nurse experts, anxiety is well understood and in their view there are 8 critical defining characteristics (anxious, fidgeting, jittery, increased tension, insomnia, irritability, preoccupation, sleep disturbance) and 38 noncritical defining characteristics. The other characteristics (24) were not judged to be relevant. Further research is necessary to conduct validation studies of other nursing diagnoses and other components of nursing practice in Brazil. Such initiatives certainly will contribute the efforts of NANDA/NIC/NOC to standardize languages for nursing, decrease cultural differences, and enlarge and enrich nursing knowledge.","PeriodicalId":49050,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications","volume":"16 1","pages":"7-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-618X.2003.001_9.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

PURPOSE To validate the nursing diagnosis of anxiety as applied by expert Brazilian nurses and clinicians using the NANDA defining characteristics translated into Portuguese, and to compare their judgment. METHODS A descriptive, exploratory, and comparative study was conducted using the Diagnostic Content Validation (DCV) model. A convenience sample of 120 nurses familiar with nursing diagnoses answered a semistructured questionnaire that included demographic data, the definition, and a list of defining characteristics of anxiety. Three defining characteristics of the nursing diagnosis fear were added to the list as distractors. Subjects were asked to rate each defining characteristic on a scale from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic). Descriptive analysis was used to identify the nurse experts and clinicians. Assigned weights were determined for each characteristic: 1 = 0, 2 = 0.25, 3 = 0.50, 4 = 0.75, and 5 = 1. Variance analysis using F statistics to compare averages and chi-squares for frequency distribution were applied. The defining characteristics with weight ratios >.80 were considered critical, those with weight ratios >.50 and <.80 were noncritical, and those defining characteristics with weight ratios of <.50 were not considered representative. An overall DCV score was obtained by summing individual scores and dividing by the total number of defining characteristics. Comparative analysis was used to verify differences in expert and clinician judgments using significant differences analysis. FINDINGS Among 120 nurses, 51 (44%) were expert nurses and 69 (58%) had expertise by caring for people with anxiety. Three fourths (76%) of the expert nurses and 75% of the clinicians considered the NANDA definition appropriate. Judgment of both groups of nurses was equivanent (p= .93). Experts classified 8 (11%) defining characteristics as critical, but only 2 (3%)—anxious, fidgeting—were judged critical by both expert nurses and clinicians. Two defining characteristics (increased tension, preoccupation) of the 8 had statistically different scores between the two groups. The other defining characteristics were statistically similar. A total DCV score of 0.67 ± 0.10 was obtained from expert nurses and 0.65 ± 0.10 from clinicians (nonsignificant). DISCUSSION Anxiety is a common and frequent manifestation and a nursing concept identified and recognized by Brazilian nurses who considered it clearly defined and established by NANDA. Both groups of Brazilian nurses judged signs and symptoms of anxiety in a very similar way. CONCLUSIONS According to Brazilian nurse experts, anxiety is well understood and in their view there are 8 critical defining characteristics (anxious, fidgeting, jittery, increased tension, insomnia, irritability, preoccupation, sleep disturbance) and 38 noncritical defining characteristics. The other characteristics (24) were not judged to be relevant. Further research is necessary to conduct validation studies of other nursing diagnoses and other components of nursing practice in Brazil. Such initiatives certainly will contribute the efforts of NANDA/NIC/NOC to standardize languages for nursing, decrease cultural differences, and enlarge and enrich nursing knowledge.
巴西护士对焦虑的验证
目的验证巴西专业护士和临床医生使用NANDA定义特征翻译成葡萄牙语对焦虑的护理诊断,并比较他们的判断。方法采用诊断内容验证(DCV)模型进行描述性、探索性和比较性研究。120名熟悉护理诊断的护士回答了一份半结构化问卷,其中包括人口统计数据、定义和焦虑定义特征列表。护理诊断恐惧的三个定义特征被添加到干扰因素列表中。受试者被要求对每个定义特征进行评分,从1(完全没有特征)到5(非常有特征)。采用描述性分析确定护理专家和临床医生。为每个特征确定分配的权重:1 = 0,2 = 0.25,3 = 0.50,4 = 0.75,5 = 1。方差分析采用F统计比较平均值和卡方频率分布。质量比>的定义特征。80个被认为是关键,体重比>。50和<。80个是非关键的,定义特征的权重比<。50个被认为不具有代表性。总体DCV得分是通过将个体得分相加并除以定义特征的总数得到的。比较分析采用显著性差异分析来验证专家和临床医生判断的差异。结果120名护士中,51名(44%)是专业护士,69名(58%)具有护理焦虑症患者的专业知识。四分之三(76%)的专业护士和75%的临床医生认为NANDA的定义是合适的。两组护士的判断相当(p= 0.93)。专家将8项(11%)定义为关键特征,但只有2项(3%)——焦虑、坐立不安——被专业护士和临床医生认为是关键特征。两组8人的两个决定性特征(增加紧张,专注)的得分有统计学差异。其他的定义特征在统计上是相似的。专家护士的总DCV得分为0.67±0.10,临床医生的总DCV得分为0.65±0.10(无统计学意义)。焦虑是一种常见和频繁的表现,也是巴西护士确定和认可的护理概念,他们认为它是由NANDA明确定义和建立的。两组巴西护士以非常相似的方式判断焦虑的迹象和症状。结论:巴西护理专家认为,焦虑有8个关键特征(焦虑、坐立不安、神经紧张、紧张程度增加、失眠、易怒、注意力集中、睡眠障碍)和38个非关键特征。其他特征(24)不被认为是相关的。进一步的研究是必要的,以进行验证研究的其他护理诊断和其他组成部分的护理实践在巴西。这些举措必将为NANDA/NIC/NOC规范护理语言、减少文化差异、扩大和丰富护理知识做出贡献。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 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