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 , Miguel R. Guevara , 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 , Miguel R. Guevara , 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}
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.