临床护理研究内容效度指标的比较:一个实际案例。

Paulina Hurtado-Arenas , Miguel R. Guevara , Víctor M. González-Chordá
{"title":"临床护理研究内容效度指标的比较:一个实际案例。","authors":"Paulina Hurtado-Arenas ,&nbsp;Miguel R. Guevara ,&nbsp;Víctor M. González-Chordá","doi":"10.1016/j.enfcle.2025.502214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare techniques to analyze the content validity of measurement instruments applicable to nursing care research through a practical case.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72917,"journal":{"name":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","volume":"35 3","pages":"Article 502214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of content validity indices for clinical nursing research: A practical case\",\"authors\":\"Paulina Hurtado-Arenas ,&nbsp;Miguel R. Guevara ,&nbsp;Víctor M. González-Chordá\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.enfcle.2025.502214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare techniques to analyze the content validity of measurement instruments applicable to nursing care research through a practical case.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72917,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 502214\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2445147925000803\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2445147925000803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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

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.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信