Global assessment instrument for quality of nursing doctoral education with a research focus: Validity and reliability study

Abstract

23 Objectives: This study was designed to assess the content and construct validity and reliability 4 of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education (QNDE) instrument for nursing doctoral programmes with a research focus. Design:A cross-sectional, survey study.Settings: Using Qualtrics survey, the research team sent emails to potential participants providing a link to the study and the QNDE instrument.Participants: A total of 234 faculty and doctoral students participated: 17 faculty from 14 countries in the first stage; 111 faculty and 106 doctoral students from 20 countries in the second stage. Methods: The content validity, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity of the four domains (program, faculty, resources, and evaluation) of the QNDE were examined in two stages. Data were collected from purposive samples of faculty and students between June 2018 and March 2019. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in ordinal scale using robust weighted least square mean and variance (WLSMV) adjusted estimator in MPlus 8. Results: Content validity of the items in the four domains was accepted when the item showed content validity (I-CVI > .78). Internal consistency reliability in four domains was computed using Cronbach's alpha, α = 0.88 to 0.97. Construct validity of the QNDE was established by confirmatory factor analysis based on model fit statistics. Factor loading coefficients for all items in each domain were statistically significant (> .5; p < .001). Conclusions: Participation of 234 faculty and doctoral students from 20 countries on four continents confirmed content validity, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity of GLOBAL QNDE INSTRUMENT VALIDATION 2 the QNDE instrument. These findings support the credibility of this revised QNDE instrument for assessing the quality of nursing doctoral education with a research focus. This is a significant step forward in enhancing the capability for evaluating doctoral programmes.

Academic Graduate Program in Nursing at Ufsc: Technological, Political, Social and Economic Impacts

“…Following and monitoring the process of PhD education in Nursing has therefore been a topic on the agenda in the entire world 4,[11][12] . Increasingly complex and systematic assessment systems play a fundamental role in reorienting the training processes, and new indicators are needed to address this complexity, such as those herein discussed.…”

“…Like the economic impact, the political impact lacks greater visibility. The global recognition of academic nurses for the quality of their PhD training in Nursing and the continuous assessment of the quality of the existing programs are imperious for the advancement of the profession, for the promotion of good Nursing practices, for the increase of associative leaderships and institutional management positions in the health system and academic training, and for the formulation and implementation of public policies and generation of processes and products 1,4,9,11,[18][19][20] . By directing towards solidarity strategies, a study carried out with Master's degree graduates from Angola and Mozambique, showed that they began to hold high positions such as managers, directors and State secretaries, in addition to working as managers in health and teaching programs.…”

“…The indicators and criteria corresponding to the impacts of stricto sensu training in the Nursing area signal us specificities and peculiarities in fields of subjectivities and intersubjectivities specific to our discipline 4 . Care as a social good and inherent to the domain of human nature involves the sensitive relationships of human and social interactions.…”

Design of Soymilk Product Development from Grobogan Soybean Variety in Indonesia

“…The items which is evaluated by reliability test are only items that have been valid. Kim et al (2020) also used Alpha Cronbach to evaluate the quality of nursing doctoral education by validity and reliability tests.…”

Learn to Interpret and Conduct Rotation Methods in SPSS With Data From the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (2014)

“…most experts opinion about an asked question point in the same direction), which is most commonly measured through a content validity index (CVI) (Polit et al, 2007;Wan Ahmad et al, 2020). Each item validity was assessed through a five-point Likert scale (a slight variation from Kim et al (2020) and Polit et al (2007) which proposed a four-point scale), and relevant items were considered with a value of 4 or 5 (relevant and highly relevant) to make for a more restrictive validity criteria. Table 20 represent the I-CVI (item content validity index) and S-CVI (scale content validity index), which is computed using the average of I-CVI, instead of the universal agreement method which is more restrictive and therefore more likely to produce divergent results when evaluating new instruments (Polit et al, 2007).…”