Developing and validating the nursing presence scale for hospitalized patients

Abstract

Aim We developed and psychometrically tested the Nursing Presence Scale. Background Nursing presence is a foundation for professional nursing practice; therefore, it is critical to measure this concept. Introduction This instrument development study was designed to generate an itemized scale and psychometric testing using a sample of Iranian patients. Methods Based on both a concept development and literature review, and finally face and content validity 44-item draft scale was generated. During November 2018–2019, 774 patients were surveyed. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the scale’s construct validity; concurrent and predictive reliability of the nursing presence scale were also evaluated. We also examine the weighting to scale items. Results The analyses yielded a 36-item, 4-factor scale that adequately fit the data. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole instrument was 0.94. The intra class correlation coefficient was 0.91. Nursing Presence Scale scores were positively correlated with Revised Humane Caring Scale and predicted 25% of missed nursing care. Conclusion This 36-item has good reliability and validity, making it useful for measuring the current condition of nursing presence. Implications for Nursing and Health Policy Measuring the frequency of nursing presence allows for data-driven planning and upgrading the inpatient care services.

Development and evaluation of a rehabilitation training compliance scale for patients with urinary incontinence

“…A 5-level scoring method was used, where (1 = very unessential, 2 = unessential, 3 = general, 4 = essential, and 5 = very essential) through the Delphi method. Items with a score of 4 or 5 were considered to be relevant to the content being measured [ 45 ]. The I-CVI was the ratio of the number of experts who determined the item as relevant (i.e.…”

“…The I-CVI was the ratio of the number of experts who determined the item as relevant (i.e. score ≥ 4) to the total number of experts [ 45 ]. The S-CVI was calculated as the average CVI across items.…”

“…The CVR was calculated by experts' responses to the following options based on the Likert scale: (1 = very unessential, 2 = unessential, 3 = general, 4 = essential, and 5 = very essential), as the number of experts who determine the item as essential (i.e. score ≥ 4) minus “the total number of specialists∕2”, and this result is divided by “the total number of specialists∕2” [ 45 ]. The CVR can range from -1 (perfect disagreement) to 1 (perfect agreement), with a CVR greater than zero meaning that over half of the participants recognised an item as essential [ 47 ].…”

“…In CFA, researchers first raise a hypothesised factor structure and then test it, thereby examining whether the proposed model fits the data. A study mentioned that the sample size of 1:5 (N:q; the number of cases (N) to the number of estimated parameters (q)) qualifies for EFA and CFA [ 45 , 48 ], but it also pointed out that this is used for minimum recommendations. In this study, the sample size for EFA and CFA was calculated to be 5–10 times as many subjects as the number.…”

Self‐reported practices, competence and difficulties towards palliative care among nurses: A cross‐sectional study

“…A satisfying model was needed to meet the following criteria: 2 /df < 3.00, RMSEA < 0.05, SRMR < 0.05, GFI > 0.90, CFI > 0.9, AGFI > 0.90, NFI > 0.90 and TLI > 0.90. However, relevant studies reported that the RMSEA index ≤ 0.08, GFI > 0.85, CFI > 0.85 and AGFI > 0.85 were also acceptable (Atashzadeh‐Shoorideh et al, 2022; Schermelleh‐Engel et al, 2003). All statistical tests were two‐tailed to determine the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.…”