护士在静脉通路装置插入和管理方面的循证知识和自我效能:问卷的开发与验证。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Nursing Open Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1002/nop2.2177
Michela Piredda, Marco Sguanci, Maddalena De Maria, Giorgia Petrucci, Matteo Usai, Jacopo Fiorini, Maria Grazia De Marinis
{"title":"护士在静脉通路装置插入和管理方面的循证知识和自我效能:问卷的开发与验证。","authors":"Michela Piredda, Marco Sguanci, Maddalena De Maria, Giorgia Petrucci, Matteo Usai, Jacopo Fiorini, Maria Grazia De Marinis","doi":"10.1002/nop2.2177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop and psychometrically test an instrument to assess nurses' evidence-based knowledge and self-efficacy regarding insertion and management of venous access devices (short peripheral catheter (SPC), long peripheral catheter/midline (LPC) and PICC) and the management of totally implantable central venous catheter (Port) in adult patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multicenter cross-sectional observational study with questionnaire development and psychometric testing (validity and reliability).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An evidence-based instrument was developed including a 34-item knowledge section and an 81-item self-efficacy section including four device-specific parts. Nineteen experts evaluated content validity. A pilot study was conducted with 86 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices were calculated for knowledge items. Confirmatory factor analyses tested the dimensionality of the self-efficacy section according to the development model. Construct validity was tested through known group validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha coefficient for unidimensional scales and omega coefficients for multidimensional scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Content validity indices and results from the pilot study were excellent with all the item-content validity indices >0.78 and scale-content validity index ranging from 0.96 to 0.99. The survey was completed by 425 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices for knowledge items were acceptable with most items (58.8%) showing desirable difficulty and most items (58.8%) with excellent (35.3%) or good (23.5%) discrimination power, and appropriate to the content. The dimensionality of the model posited for self-efficacy was confirmed with adequate fit indices (e.g., comparative fit index range 0.984-0.996, root mean square error of approximation range 0.054-0.073). Construct validity was determined and reliability was excellent with alpha values ranging from 0.843 to 0.946 and omega coefficients ranging from 0.833 to 0.933. Therefore, a valid and reliable tool based on updated guidelines is made available to evaluate nurses' competencies for venous access insertion and management.</p>","PeriodicalId":48570,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225607/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nurses' evidence-based knowledge and self-efficacy in venous access device insertion and management: Development and validation of a questionnaire.\",\"authors\":\"Michela Piredda, Marco Sguanci, Maddalena De Maria, Giorgia Petrucci, Matteo Usai, Jacopo Fiorini, Maria Grazia De Marinis\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/nop2.2177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop and psychometrically test an instrument to assess nurses' evidence-based knowledge and self-efficacy regarding insertion and management of venous access devices (short peripheral catheter (SPC), long peripheral catheter/midline (LPC) and PICC) and the management of totally implantable central venous catheter (Port) in adult patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multicenter cross-sectional observational study with questionnaire development and psychometric testing (validity and reliability).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An evidence-based instrument was developed including a 34-item knowledge section and an 81-item self-efficacy section including four device-specific parts. Nineteen experts evaluated content validity. A pilot study was conducted with 86 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices were calculated for knowledge items. Confirmatory factor analyses tested the dimensionality of the self-efficacy section according to the development model. Construct validity was tested through known group validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha coefficient for unidimensional scales and omega coefficients for multidimensional scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Content validity indices and results from the pilot study were excellent with all the item-content validity indices >0.78 and scale-content validity index ranging from 0.96 to 0.99. The survey was completed by 425 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices for knowledge items were acceptable with most items (58.8%) showing desirable difficulty and most items (58.8%) with excellent (35.3%) or good (23.5%) discrimination power, and appropriate to the content. The dimensionality of the model posited for self-efficacy was confirmed with adequate fit indices (e.g., comparative fit index range 0.984-0.996, root mean square error of approximation range 0.054-0.073). Construct validity was determined and reliability was excellent with alpha values ranging from 0.843 to 0.946 and omega coefficients ranging from 0.833 to 0.933. Therefore, a valid and reliable tool based on updated guidelines is made available to evaluate nurses' competencies for venous access insertion and management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48570,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225607/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.2177\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.2177","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:开发一种工具并对其进行心理测试,以评估护士对静脉通路装置(短外周导管(SPC)、长外周导管/中线(LPC)和 PICC)的插入和管理以及成年患者完全植入式中心静脉导管(Port)的管理方面的循证知识和自我效能:设计:多中心横断面观察研究,开发问卷并进行心理测试(有效性和可靠性):方法:开发了一个以证据为基础的工具,包括 34 个项目的知识部分和 81 个项目的自我效能部分,其中包括四个设备特定部分。19 位专家对内容有效性进行了评估。对 86 名护士进行了试点研究。计算了知识项目的难度和区分度指数。根据开发模型对自我效能部分的维度进行了确认性因素分析测试。通过已知群体效度检验了结构效度。信度通过单维量表的 Cronbach's alpha 系数和多维量表的 omega 系数进行评估:试点研究的内容效度指数和结果都非常好,所有项目-内容效度指数都大于 0.78,量表-内容效度指数在 0.96 至 0.99 之间。共有 425 名护士完成了调查。知识项目的难度和区分度指数均可接受,大多数项目(58.8%)显示出理想的难度,大多数项目(58.8%)具有极佳(35.3%)或良好(23.5%)的区分度,且与内容相符。通过适当的拟合指数(例如,比较拟合指数范围为 0.984-0.996,近似均方根误差范围为 0.054-0.073)证实了自我效能感模型的维度性。结构效度得到确定,信度极佳,α 值范围为 0.843 至 0.946,Ω 系数范围为 0.833 至 0.933。因此,基于最新指南的有效而可靠的工具可用于评估护士在静脉通路插入和管理方面的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nurses' evidence-based knowledge and self-efficacy in venous access device insertion and management: Development and validation of a questionnaire.

Aim: To develop and psychometrically test an instrument to assess nurses' evidence-based knowledge and self-efficacy regarding insertion and management of venous access devices (short peripheral catheter (SPC), long peripheral catheter/midline (LPC) and PICC) and the management of totally implantable central venous catheter (Port) in adult patients.

Design: Multicenter cross-sectional observational study with questionnaire development and psychometric testing (validity and reliability).

Methods: An evidence-based instrument was developed including a 34-item knowledge section and an 81-item self-efficacy section including four device-specific parts. Nineteen experts evaluated content validity. A pilot study was conducted with 86 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices were calculated for knowledge items. Confirmatory factor analyses tested the dimensionality of the self-efficacy section according to the development model. Construct validity was tested through known group validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha coefficient for unidimensional scales and omega coefficients for multidimensional scales.

Results: Content validity indices and results from the pilot study were excellent with all the item-content validity indices >0.78 and scale-content validity index ranging from 0.96 to 0.99. The survey was completed by 425 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices for knowledge items were acceptable with most items (58.8%) showing desirable difficulty and most items (58.8%) with excellent (35.3%) or good (23.5%) discrimination power, and appropriate to the content. The dimensionality of the model posited for self-efficacy was confirmed with adequate fit indices (e.g., comparative fit index range 0.984-0.996, root mean square error of approximation range 0.054-0.073). Construct validity was determined and reliability was excellent with alpha values ranging from 0.843 to 0.946 and omega coefficients ranging from 0.833 to 0.933. Therefore, a valid and reliable tool based on updated guidelines is made available to evaluate nurses' competencies for venous access insertion and management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Open
Nursing Open Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
298
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Open is a peer reviewed open access journal that welcomes articles on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy. We aim to publish articles that contribute to the art and science of nursing and which have a positive impact on health either locally, nationally, regionally or globally
×
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