Validity of Nursing Outcomes Classification health promotion behavior scale in college students

Abstract

Objective: to verify the reliability and validity of the health promotion behavior scale, of the Nursing Outcomes Classification, in university students. Method: methodological study carried out with 324 university students from a federal institution, based in a city in the Northeast of Brazil. Internal consistency was verified using Cronbach’s alpha and item-total correlation. Validity was performed through exploratory factor analysis via main components. Results: the scale showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83, showing good reliability. The item-total correlations remained above 0.3 for most items, only items 01, 13, 19 and 20 were below this mark. In the exploratory factor analysis, two components were extracted whose variances explained 44.54% of the instrument’s composition. Conclusion: the health promotion behavior scale showed good reliability and validity, demonstrating that it can be applied to the population of university students.

Development and Validation of a Health Behaviour Scale: Exploratory Factor Analysis on Data from a Multicentre Study in Female Primary Care Patients

“…Numerous health behaviour questionnaires have been developed and validated to cater to the needs of various populations, age groups, and cultures. At times, these scales have assessed all kinds of health behaviours while some have focused only on specific aspects; some are up-to-date, while other ones are rather obsolete; and they can be universal or may serve one particular purpose [ 18 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. We chose to develop a questionnaire that would measure the various types of health behaviours that could be applicable to the general population as well as to chronically ill subjects.…”

“…To generate the initial item pool for the questionnaire, we reviewed literature pertaining to: the existing health behaviours scales to check what kind of items they contained and how robust the evidence supporting the items was [ 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]; the current definitions of health behaviours to see if they had any areas or domains not reflected in the existing scales [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]; the influence of health behaviours on such populations as women and persons with CVD to look for behaviours which need special attention [ 10 , 11 , 16 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. …”

“…the existing health behaviours scales to check what kind of items they contained and how robust the evidence supporting the items was [ 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ];…”