Development and validation of evaluation tools of nursing students’ clinical pharmacology unit

Abstract

IntroductionThe need for valid, reliable, and objective tools has always been emphasized in studies related to the clinical assessment of nursing students. The aims of this study were to develop and assess the validity and reliability of the tools used to evaluate the clinical pharmacology unit.MethodsThis study was a methodological one, conducted in 2016. An item pool was developed based on the literature review and personal interviews with faculty members. The tool’s validity was determined through assessment of face validity, content validity, and construct validity, using exploratory factor analysis on the data provided by 264 second- and third-semester nursing students of the Islamic Azad University of Babol University of Medical Sciences. Reliability was determined through internal and external consistency, using a Cronbach’s coefficient of the correlation between classes.ResultsBased on the exploratory factor analysis, all items with a special value of >1 were grouped into six factors: 1) professional behavior; 2) effective communication; 3) recognition of medical terminology; 4) nursing actions before administering medicine; 5) nursing actions while administering medicine; and 6) nursing actions after administering medicine. These factors explained 77% of the total variance of the concept of assessment of the clinical pharmacology unit. In this study, reliability was demonstrated by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.96; the correlation coefficient between floors for the total tool was 0.91, ranging from 0.64 to 0.89 in its dimensions.ConclusionThe evaluation tool of the clinical pharmacology unit has an acceptable construct validity and satisfactory reliability and validity. Therefore, it can be used to evaluate the clinical pharmacology unit in the nursing education system in Iran.

Understanding and measuring nurses’ professionalism: Development and validation of the Nurses’ Professionalism Inventory

“…The NPI has some distinctive features that are unavailable in previous scales. For example, some previous scales (Finnbakk et al., 2015; Navabi et al., 2016) were focused only on action and not incorporating opinions other than nurses. Many previous studies focused on one aspect of professional standards such as accountability (Krautscheid, 2014; Rubio‐Navarro, Garcia‐Capilla, Torralba‐Madrid, & Rutty, 2019) or autonomy (Iranmanesh, Razban, Nejad, & Ghazanfari, 2014).…”

“…In 1992, the eight‐subscale Professionalism in Nursing Behavioral Inventory (PNBI) was developed based on this model and validated; it has since been used in several studies (Adams, Miller, & Beck, 1996; Hisar, Karadag, & Kan, 2010; Tanaka, Yonemitsu, & Kawamoto, 2014). Recently, other professionalism scales have been developed (Finnbakk et al., 2015; Navabi et al., 2016; Weis & Schank, 2017). A limitation of those instruments is that they focus on nurses’ behaviours.…”

Nutrition self-efficacy assessment: designing and psychometric evaluation in a community-dwelling elderly population

“…The acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and ICC values for the new instrument were found ≥ 0.70. Before starting the EFA, the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) and the Bartlett test was employed [40]. KMO ≥ 0.9 and a significant Bartlett test (≥ 0.05) in factor analysis were acceptable.…”

The design and evaluation of psychometric properties for a questionnaire on elderly abuse by family caregivers among older adults on hemodialysis

“…Factor analysis was used to study the internal relationship between the variables and explore the categories of items that were closely related. 27 Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett sphericity tests were used before extracting the components to ensure that the items were appropriately designed to analyze the different factors. The KMO value of 0.7 or higher was considered as the condition for sample size sufficiency in the content analysis.…”