用仿真测试I-BIDS的有效性和可靠性:一种新的切换工具

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Frank Guido-Sanz, Mindi Anderson, S. Talbert, Desiree A. Díaz, Gregory Welch, A. Tanaka
{"title":"用仿真测试I-BIDS的有效性和可靠性:一种新的切换工具","authors":"Frank Guido-Sanz, Mindi Anderson, S. Talbert, Desiree A. Díaz, Gregory Welch, A. Tanaka","doi":"10.1177/10468781221098567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Patient safety and improved outcomes are core priorities in healthcare, and effective handoffs are essential to these priorities. Validating handoff tools using simulation is a novel approach. Methods The construct validity and instrument reliability of the I-BIDS© tool were tested. In Phase I, construct validity was substantiated with a convenience sample of 21 healthcare providers through an electronic survey. Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was tabulated using Lawshe’s CVR. Interrater reliability was tested in a simulated handoff scenario, in Phase II, with graduate nursing students and two raters, and simulation effectiveness was assessed by students. Results Construct validity was evaluated, and 17 of the 25 items were found significant at the critical level (0.42). Items scoring below were removed, and the tool was reduced by one category. Weighted kappa (Kw) with quadratic weights was run from the scenario data to determine if there was an agreement between raters of handoff performance. There was a statistically significant agreement between the two raters, Kw = .627 (95% CI: .549–.705), p < .001) with good strength of the agreement. SET-M Total mean was 55.64 (SD = 2.46). Discussion The tool showed beginning validity and interrater reliability. The SET-M Learning subscale showed the widest range of scores which suggests the most opportunity for improvement. Use of the tool in simulated scenarios may be one way to test the items further. Conclusions Simulation was effective in facilitating the evaluation of the tool.","PeriodicalId":47521,"journal":{"name":"SIMULATION & GAMING","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Simulation to Test Validity and Reliability of I-BIDS: A New Handoff Tool\",\"authors\":\"Frank Guido-Sanz, Mindi Anderson, S. Talbert, Desiree A. Díaz, Gregory Welch, A. Tanaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10468781221098567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Patient safety and improved outcomes are core priorities in healthcare, and effective handoffs are essential to these priorities. Validating handoff tools using simulation is a novel approach. Methods The construct validity and instrument reliability of the I-BIDS© tool were tested. In Phase I, construct validity was substantiated with a convenience sample of 21 healthcare providers through an electronic survey. Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was tabulated using Lawshe’s CVR. Interrater reliability was tested in a simulated handoff scenario, in Phase II, with graduate nursing students and two raters, and simulation effectiveness was assessed by students. Results Construct validity was evaluated, and 17 of the 25 items were found significant at the critical level (0.42). Items scoring below were removed, and the tool was reduced by one category. Weighted kappa (Kw) with quadratic weights was run from the scenario data to determine if there was an agreement between raters of handoff performance. There was a statistically significant agreement between the two raters, Kw = .627 (95% CI: .549–.705), p < .001) with good strength of the agreement. SET-M Total mean was 55.64 (SD = 2.46). Discussion The tool showed beginning validity and interrater reliability. The SET-M Learning subscale showed the widest range of scores which suggests the most opportunity for improvement. Use of the tool in simulated scenarios may be one way to test the items further. Conclusions Simulation was effective in facilitating the evaluation of the tool.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SIMULATION & GAMING\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SIMULATION & GAMING\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781221098567\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIMULATION & GAMING","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781221098567","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景患者安全和改善结果是医疗保健的核心优先事项,有效的交接对这些优先事项至关重要。使用仿真验证切换工具是一种新颖的方法。方法测试I-BIDS©工具的结构有效性和仪器可靠性。在第一阶段,通过电子调查,21名医疗保健提供者的便利样本证实了结构的有效性。内容有效性比率(CVR)使用Lawshe的CVR制成表格。在第二阶段的模拟切换场景中,由护理研究生和两名评分员测试了询问器的可靠性,并由学生评估了模拟的有效性。结果对构念有效性进行了评估,25个项目中有17个在临界水平上显著(0.42)。得分低于的项目被删除,工具减少了一类。从场景数据中运行具有二次权重的加权kappa(Kw),以确定切换性能的评分者之间是否存在一致性。两位评分者之间存在统计学上显著的一致性,Kw=.627(95%置信区间:.549–.705),p<.001),具有良好的一致性。SET-M总平均值为55.64(SD=2.46)。SET-M学习分量表显示出最广泛的分数范围,这意味着最有机会改进。在模拟场景中使用该工具可能是进一步测试项目的一种方式。结论仿真在促进工具评估方面是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using Simulation to Test Validity and Reliability of I-BIDS: A New Handoff Tool
Background Patient safety and improved outcomes are core priorities in healthcare, and effective handoffs are essential to these priorities. Validating handoff tools using simulation is a novel approach. Methods The construct validity and instrument reliability of the I-BIDS© tool were tested. In Phase I, construct validity was substantiated with a convenience sample of 21 healthcare providers through an electronic survey. Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was tabulated using Lawshe’s CVR. Interrater reliability was tested in a simulated handoff scenario, in Phase II, with graduate nursing students and two raters, and simulation effectiveness was assessed by students. Results Construct validity was evaluated, and 17 of the 25 items were found significant at the critical level (0.42). Items scoring below were removed, and the tool was reduced by one category. Weighted kappa (Kw) with quadratic weights was run from the scenario data to determine if there was an agreement between raters of handoff performance. There was a statistically significant agreement between the two raters, Kw = .627 (95% CI: .549–.705), p < .001) with good strength of the agreement. SET-M Total mean was 55.64 (SD = 2.46). Discussion The tool showed beginning validity and interrater reliability. The SET-M Learning subscale showed the widest range of scores which suggests the most opportunity for improvement. Use of the tool in simulated scenarios may be one way to test the items further. Conclusions Simulation was effective in facilitating the evaluation of the tool.
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
SIMULATION & GAMING
SIMULATION & GAMING EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research contains articles examining academic and applied issues in the expanding fields of simulation, computerized simulation, gaming, modeling, play, role-play, debriefing, game design, experiential learning, and related methodologies. The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of Simulation & Gaming are demonstrated by the wide variety of interests and disciplines of its readers, contributors, and editorial board members. Areas include: sociology, decision making, psychology, language training, cognition, learning theory, management, educational technologies, negotiation, peace and conflict studies, economics, international studies, research methodology.
×
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