Psychometric evaluation of the Turkish version of the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1111/jep.14204
Dilek Demir Kösem, Şenay Demir, Murat Bektaş, İlknur Bektaş
{"title":"Psychometric evaluation of the Turkish version of the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale.","authors":"Dilek Demir Kösem, Şenay Demir, Murat Bektaş, İlknur Bektaş","doi":"10.1111/jep.14204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Progress in the nursing profession and clinical decision-making are largely sustained by the coherence between theory and practice. The quality of healthcare provided by nurses and patient outcomes are adversely impacted by the gap between knowledge and practice. Measurement tools used to assess nurses' perceptions of this gap are inadequate in Türkiye. This research aimed to adapt the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale into Turkish and to evaluate its reliability and validity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study, in which a methodological design was employed, was conducted with 406 nurses between March and June 2022. A descriptive information form and the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale (NPGKPS) were employed to gather data. The validity study included content and construct validity analyses, and the reliability study included item analysis, split-half test, and Cronbach alpha coefficients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scale had 35 items and four dimensions, which explained 54.65% of the total variance. The goodness of fit values, which were found following a confirmatory factor analysis, were estimated as follows: CMIN = 1808.984, DF = 512, CMIN/DF = 3.533, IFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.87, RFI = 0.83, CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.079, and NFI = 0.86. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the total scale was estimated as 0.95 and it was in the range of 0.84 to 0.93 for four factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale was a reliable and valid measure which could be applied to Turkish society.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14204","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Progress in the nursing profession and clinical decision-making are largely sustained by the coherence between theory and practice. The quality of healthcare provided by nurses and patient outcomes are adversely impacted by the gap between knowledge and practice. Measurement tools used to assess nurses' perceptions of this gap are inadequate in Türkiye. This research aimed to adapt the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale into Turkish and to evaluate its reliability and validity.

Methods: The study, in which a methodological design was employed, was conducted with 406 nurses between March and June 2022. A descriptive information form and the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale (NPGKPS) were employed to gather data. The validity study included content and construct validity analyses, and the reliability study included item analysis, split-half test, and Cronbach alpha coefficients.

Results: The scale had 35 items and four dimensions, which explained 54.65% of the total variance. The goodness of fit values, which were found following a confirmatory factor analysis, were estimated as follows: CMIN = 1808.984, DF = 512, CMIN/DF = 3.533, IFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.87, RFI = 0.83, CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.079, and NFI = 0.86. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the total scale was estimated as 0.95 and it was in the range of 0.84 to 0.93 for four factors.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the nurses' perception of the gap between knowledge and practice scale was a reliable and valid measure which could be applied to Turkish society.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对土耳其版 "护士对知识与实践之间差距的认知量表 "进行心理计量学评估。
背景:护理专业的进步和临床决策在很大程度上取决于理论与实践之间的一致性。知识与实践之间的差距会对护士提供的医疗保健质量和患者的治疗效果产生不利影响。在土耳其,用于评估护士对这一差距的看法的测量工具并不完善。本研究旨在将护士对知识与实践之间差距的认知量表改编成土耳其语,并评估其可靠性和有效性:本研究采用方法论设计,在 2022 年 3 月至 6 月期间对 406 名护士进行了调查。研究采用了描述性信息表和护士对知识与实践差距的认知量表(NPGKPS)来收集数据。效度研究包括内容效度和建构效度分析,信度研究包括项目分析、分半测试和 Cronbach α 系数:量表有 35 个项目和四个维度,解释了总方差的 54.65%。经过确认性因素分析,拟合优度的估计值如下:CMIN=1808.984,DF=512,CMIN/DF=3.533,IFI=0.89,TLI=0.87,RFI=0.83,CFI=0.89,RMSEA=0.079,NFI=0.86。总量表的 Cronbach's alpha 系数估计为 0.95,四个因子的 Cronbach's alpha 系数在 0.84 至 0.93 之间:总之,护士对知识与实践之间差距的认知量表是一种可靠有效的测量方法,可应用于土耳其社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
AttributeRank: An Algorithm for Attribute Ranking in Clinical Variable Selection The 6-Item Self-Efficacy Scale in Chronic Disease Management in Women With Endometriosis: A Turkish Validity and Reliability Study Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Karaduman Chewing Performance Scale for the Italian Paediatric Population Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Content Validation of the Yonsei Lifestyle Profile for Older Adults in the United States Effect of Excess Mortality on Longevity During the COVID-19 Pandemic in South Asia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1