Reliability Generalization Study of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool

Abstract

The so-called Person-Centered Care (PCC) model identifies three fundamental principles: changing the focus of attention from the disease to the person, individualizing care, and promoting empowerment. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) has gained wide acceptance as a measure of PCC in recent years due to its brevity and simplicity, as well as its ease of application and interpretation. The objective of this study is to carry out a reliability generalization meta-analysis to estimate the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyze possible factors that may affect it, such as the year of publication, the care context, the application method, and certain sociodemographic properties of the study sample. The mean value of α for the 25 samples of the 23 studies in the meta-analysis was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79–0.84), with high heterogeneity (squared-I = 85.83%). The only variable that had a statistically significant relationship with the reliability coefficient was the mean age of the sample. The results show that the P-CAT gives acceptably consistent scores when its use is oriented toward the description and investigation of groups, although it may be affected by variables such as the age of participants.

Person-centered Care Assessment Tool, a focus in quality healthcare: A systematic review of psychometric properties

“…In the original study (n = 220; [13]), the internal consistency of the instrument yielded satisfactory values for the total scale (α = .84) and good test-retest reliability (r = .66) at a one-week interval. A reliability generalization study conducted in 2021 [22], which estimated the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyzed possible factors that could affect it, recorded that the mean α value for the 25 metaanalysis samples (some of which are part of the validations included in this study) was.81, and it was seen that the only variable that had a statistically signi cant relationship with the reliability coe cient was the mean age of the sample. Regarding internal structure validity, three factors (56% of the total variance) were obtained, as well as content validity estimated by experts, literature reviews and stakeholders [23].…”

“…A review of this type is critical given some methodological issues that seem not to have been resolved in the P-CAT; for example, although the multidimensionality of the P-CAT was identi ed in the study that constructed it, Bru-Luna et al [22] recently stated that in adaptations of the P-CAT [16][17][18][19][20]25], the total score was used for interpretation, and multidimensionality was disregarded. Thus, the multidimensionality of the original study was apparently not replicated.…”

“…Thus, the multidimensionality of the original study was apparently not replicated. Bru-Luna et al [22] also indicated that the internal structure validity of the P-CAT is usually underreported, lacking su cient rigorous approaches to establish with certainty how its scores are calculated.…”

Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties

“…In the original study (n = 220; [21]), the internal consistency of the instrument yielded satisfactory values for the total scale (α = 0.84) and good test-retest reliability (r =.66) at one-week intervals. A reliability generalization study conducted in 2021 [32] that estimated the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyzed possible factors that could affect the it revealed that the mean α value for the 25 meta-analysis samples (some of which were part of the validations included in this study) was 0.81, and the only variable that had a statistically significant relationship with the reliability coefficient was the mean age of the sample. With respect to internal structure validity, three factors (56% of the total variance) were obtained, and content validity was assessed by experts, literature reviews and stakeholders [33].…”

“…A review of this type is critical given that some methodological issues seem to have not been resolved in the P-CAT. For example, although the multidimensionality of the P-CAT was identified in the study that introduced it, Bru-Luna et al [32] recently stated that in adaptations of the P-CAT [25,[27][28][29][30]40], the total score is used for interpretation and multidimensionality is disregarded. Thus, the multidimensionality of the original study was apparently not replicated.…”