The Development of Chinese Version of Transcultural Nursing Self-Efficiency Scale: Using Rasch Model Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: With the huge advances of globalization and urbanization, the nursing services in China are meeting the challenge of varied culture-specific needs in practices. Tools to measure transcultural sensitivity thus has great value in promoting transcultural nursing practices. Method: The Chinese version of Transcultural Nursing Self-Efficacy Scale (TSET-CV) was translated and validated with a sample of 2,346 nurses in China. Utilizing the analytical framework of the rating scale model, each item of the three subscales, namely the cognitive, practical, and effect subscale, was analyzed in terms of item analysis, item fitting, difficulty, reliability, item function, and validity. Results: The analysis suggested that 5-point Likert-type scale was more suitable than the 10-point Likert-type scale originally used. Item 27 and Item 79 showed deficient properties, which was deleted in the TSET-CV. The most accurate ranges measured by the TSET-CV matched the range of the distribution of the subjects’ ability. Discussion: Unlike the classical test theory, the rating scale model based on the Rasch’s model can provide sample-independent psychometric properties of items. The revised TSET-CV has great potential in diagnosing deficiency among nursing student in transcultural self-efficiency, which can promote the development of corresponding education strategies.

The Transcultural Self-Efficacy Tool (TSET), a Journal Article, Holistic Evaluation of Evidence, and Statistical Thoughtfulness

“…Although the authors state that the TSET-CV was translated using the back-translation method (Tian et al, 2021), Item 27 does not match. The authors do not provide the written text or context of the subscale purpose, intent, or directions.…”

“…Although the authors state that the TSET-CV was translated using the back-translation method (Tian, et al, 2021), Item 79 does not match. The authors do not provide the written text or context of the subscale purpose, intent, or directions nor do they provide Items 77 and 78, which precede Item 79 and relate directly to Leininger's Culture Care Theory Decision and Action modes (Leininger, 2002).…”

“…The authors (Tian et al, 2021) present the translated and original survey name in several different ways. For example, authors list the name incorrectly in the article's title, abstract, keywords, and in the narrative text.…”

“…The authors (Tian et al, 2021) title the subscales in two different ways; the number of items is also incorrect.…”

“…When reading a recent article about a translated version of the TSET authored by Tian and colleagues (Tian et al, 2021), I noticed some discrepancies, misinformation, and areas for enhancement. My motivation in writing this commentary is to (a) prevent perpetuation of repeated errors and misinformation, (b) succinctly share additional information for clarity and contemplation, and (c) advocate a holistic approach to evaluating research evidence where “practical importance,” “conceptual congruence,” and “content knowledge and judgment” as well as statistical outcomes are thoughtfully considered in all phases of the research and publication process.…”