Lateral Violence in Nursing Survey: Instrument Development and Validation

Abstract

An examination of the psychometric properties of the Lateral Violence in Nursing Survey (LVNS), an instrument previously developed to measure the perceived incidence and severity of lateral violence (LV) in the nursing workplace, was carried out. Conceptual clustering and principal components analysis were used with survey responses from 663 registered nurses and ancillary nursing staff in a southeastern tertiary care medical center. Where appropriate, Cronbach’s alpha (α) evaluated internal consistency. The prevalence/severity of lateral violence items constitute two distinct subscales (LV by self and others) with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.74 and 0.86, respectively. The items asking about potential causes of LV are unidimensional and internally consistent (alpha = 0.77) but there is no conceptually coherent theme underlying the various causes. Respondents rating a potential LV cause as “major” scored higher on both prevalence/severity subscales than those rating it a “minor” cause or not a cause. Subsets of items on the LVNS are internally reliable, supporting construct validity. Revisions of the original LVNS instrument will improve its use in future work.

Negative behaviours in health care: Prevalence and strategies

“…This study used the Negative Behaviors in Healthcare (NBHC) instrument adapted from the LVNS (Nemeth et al, ; Stanley et al, ) to measure negative behaviours within the interdisciplinary team pre‐intervention in 2012 and post‐intervention in 2014. The NBHC instrument contained 28 items addressing the contributing factors of lateral or vertical aggression in the work area (10 items), experiences with lateral and vertical aggression (nine items), seriousness of lateral and vertical aggression (six items), and fear of retaliation (three items).…”

“…This study used the Negative Behaviors in Healthcare (NBHC) instrument adapted from the LVNS (Nemeth et al, 2017;Stanley et al, 2007) to measure negative behaviours within the interdisciplinary team pre-intervention in 2012 and post-intervention in 2014. The Finally, responses to nine questions related to experiences with lateral (LA) or vertical aggression (VA) were aggregated into three subscales of three-items each: observation of LA or VA; utilization of LA or VA; and being a recipient of LA or VA (three items).…”

“…It may therefore be difficult to generalize these findings to more diverse populations. Although psychometric properties for the NBHC instrument are not currently published, the instrument was based on a previously published instrument—the LVNS (Nemeth et al, ), which was shown to be reliable and valid. Competing priorities and a challenging constant pace of change facing the health care landscape are two potential limiting success factors in the implementation of a professionalism task force as well as any other proposed intervention to address negative behaviours in health care.…”

“…Novice nurses are a unique population at risk of the consequences of LV, including decreased productivity, and there is an increased likelihood that they will consider leaving the profession (Berry, Gillespie, Gates, & Schafer, 2012;Vogelpohl, Rice, Edwards, & Bork, 2013). Evidence exists describing the seriousness of LV and the susceptibility of the profession to LV; however, few evaluations of specific interventions to decrease the presence of LV are available in the literature and none among those identified evaluated these behaviours within all interdisciplinary personnel within health care environments (DeMarco, Roberts, & Chandler, 2005;Griffin, 2004;Nemeth et al, 2017;Stanley et al, 2007).…”

Content Validity of A Questionnaire Exploring the Knowledge Translation Network Among Nursing Professionals

“…In studies with other types of methodologies (validation or adaptation of questionnaires or tools in quantitative research), instruments have been validated to measure the variables, or new tools created and validated as an element of quality that enhances the internal and external validity of the study (14,42,45,46). However, the objective of this type of study differs from that of SNA.…”