Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of Advance Care Planning Self-efficacy Scale for Physicians.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Palliative Care Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-06 DOI:10.1177/08258597231185679
Yanan Zhou, Zhiling Bai, Lin Cheng, Qin Zheng, Li Li
{"title":"Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of Advance Care Planning Self-efficacy Scale for Physicians.","authors":"Yanan Zhou, Zhiling Bai, Lin Cheng, Qin Zheng, Li Li","doi":"10.1177/08258597231185679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Chinese patients prefer physicians to initiate advance care planning (ACP) conversations, but there is no appropriate tool to evaluate physicians' ACP self-efficacy level in mainland China. This study aimed to translate the ACP self-efficacy scale into Chinese (ACP-SEc) and measure its psychometric properties among clinical physicians. <b>Method:</b> The original scale was translated by literal translation, synthesis, and reverse translation, according to Brislin's translation model. Seven experts were invited to further revise the scale and evaluate the content validity. 348 physicians were conveniently sampled to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scale from May to June 2021 in 7 tertiary hospitals. <b>Results:</b> The ACP-SEc contained 17 items, 1 dimension, with a total score of 17 to 85 points. In this study, the critical ratios of the items ranged from 12.533 to 23.306, the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.619 to 0.839. The item-content validity index ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the average scale-level content validity index was 0.98. In total, 75.507% of the total variance was explained by 1 common factor. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the fitting indices of the modified model were desirable. The ACP-SEc was moderately correlated with General Self-Efficacy Scale (<i>r</i> = 0.675, <i>P</i> < .001), and it differentiated between physician groups based on the knowledge level of ACP, palliative care or ACP-related training experience, attitude toward ACP, willingness to initiate ACP discussions with patients, and experience of discussing ACP with family and friends, willingness to initiate ACP discussions with family and friends (<i>P</i> <.05). The total Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability of the scale were .960 and .976, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> The ACP-SEc shows good reliability and validity, and it can be used to assess the ACP self-efficacy level of physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":51096,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08258597231185679","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chinese patients prefer physicians to initiate advance care planning (ACP) conversations, but there is no appropriate tool to evaluate physicians' ACP self-efficacy level in mainland China. This study aimed to translate the ACP self-efficacy scale into Chinese (ACP-SEc) and measure its psychometric properties among clinical physicians. Method: The original scale was translated by literal translation, synthesis, and reverse translation, according to Brislin's translation model. Seven experts were invited to further revise the scale and evaluate the content validity. 348 physicians were conveniently sampled to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scale from May to June 2021 in 7 tertiary hospitals. Results: The ACP-SEc contained 17 items, 1 dimension, with a total score of 17 to 85 points. In this study, the critical ratios of the items ranged from 12.533 to 23.306, the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.619 to 0.839. The item-content validity index ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the average scale-level content validity index was 0.98. In total, 75.507% of the total variance was explained by 1 common factor. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the fitting indices of the modified model were desirable. The ACP-SEc was moderately correlated with General Self-Efficacy Scale (r = 0.675, P < .001), and it differentiated between physician groups based on the knowledge level of ACP, palliative care or ACP-related training experience, attitude toward ACP, willingness to initiate ACP discussions with patients, and experience of discussing ACP with family and friends, willingness to initiate ACP discussions with family and friends (P <.05). The total Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability of the scale were .960 and .976, respectively. Conclusion: The ACP-SEc shows good reliability and validity, and it can be used to assess the ACP self-efficacy level of physicians.

医师事前护理计划自我效能感量表中文版的信效度。
背景:中国患者更倾向于医生主动开展预先护理计划(ACP)对话,但中国大陆尚无合适的工具来评估医生的ACP自我效能水平。本研究旨在翻译ACP自我效能量表(ACP- sec),并测量其在临床医师中的心理测量特性。方法:根据布里斯林的翻译模型,对原量表进行直译、综合、反译。邀请7位专家进一步修订量表,评估内容效度。方便抽取7家三级医院2021年5 - 6月348名医师,对量表进行信度和效度评估。结果:ACP-SEc包括17个条目,1个维度,总分在17 ~ 85分之间。本研究项目的临界比值为12.533 ~ 23.306,项目-总量相关系数为0.619 ~ 0.839。项目内容效度指数范围为0.86 ~ 1.00,平均量表水平内容效度指数为0.98。总的来说,75.507%的总方差被1个共同因子解释。验证性因子分析结果表明,修正模型的拟合指标较好。ACP- sec与一般自我效能量表呈中度相关(r = 0.675, P)。结论:ACP- sec具有良好的信效度,可用于评估医师ACP自我效能水平。
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
Journal of Palliative Care
Journal of Palliative Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Palliative Care is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, international and interdisciplinary forum for practical, critical thought on palliative care and palliative medicine. JPC publishes high-quality original research, opinion papers/commentaries, narrative and humanities works, case reports/case series, and reports on international activities and comparative palliative care.
×
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