Psychometric Properties of the Lactation Assessment and Comprehensive Intervention Tool (LAT).

IF 2.4 Q1 NURSING Nursing Reports Pub Date : 2024-12-20 DOI:10.3390/nursrep14040300
Julie Grady, Anna Blair, Kajsa Brimdyr, Karin Cadwell
{"title":"Psychometric Properties of the Lactation Assessment and Comprehensive Intervention Tool (LAT).","authors":"Julie Grady, Anna Blair, Kajsa Brimdyr, Karin Cadwell","doi":"10.3390/nursrep14040300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the short- and long-term acknowledged benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and their infants, worldwide rates trail behind international goals. Prior research confirms that breastfeeding is a nurse sensitive indicator and that problems with latching the baby and painful breastfeeding rank high among the reasons given for not continuing to breastfeed. The Lactation Assessment Tool (LAT<sup>TM</sup>) was previously evaluated in a study conducted in Latvia by nurse midwives. Use of the LAT to assess breastfeeding and suggesting corrective interventions were shown to decrease pain and promote healing in traumatized nipples. The inter-rater reliability for that study was by test/re-test amongst participating researcher midwives. The aim of the current study is to expand the understanding of LAT inter-rater reliability to include novice and expert assessors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sample of twenty participants, including both novices (nine nursing students) and 11 self-identified experts, assessed four videos of breastfeeding dyads using the assessment tool, the LAT. Novice participants received a 2 h training session before final tool assessment. Each video was viewed three times, with a 3 min pause between viewings. All elements of the LAT that could be visually evaluated were included, with each element appearing in at least two of the videos.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Acceptable internal consistency of the LAT tool was found, with Cronbach's alpha measuring 0.799, 0.740, 0.756 and 0.735 for each video, respectively. The reliability of the novice assessors improved over the course of the four videos, from 0.484 and 0.610 to 0.714 and 0.711. All of the experts had Cronbach's alpha numbers that were acceptable, ranging from 0.769 to 1.00.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results indicate that experts perform much better using the tool than trained novices. However, the subsequent use of the tool resulted in the last two video assessments having an acceptable measure for the trained novice group. The LAT is a reliable tool for trained novices and experts to assess breastfeeding positioning and latch.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"14 4","pages":"4119-4128"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11678466/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the short- and long-term acknowledged benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and their infants, worldwide rates trail behind international goals. Prior research confirms that breastfeeding is a nurse sensitive indicator and that problems with latching the baby and painful breastfeeding rank high among the reasons given for not continuing to breastfeed. The Lactation Assessment Tool (LATTM) was previously evaluated in a study conducted in Latvia by nurse midwives. Use of the LAT to assess breastfeeding and suggesting corrective interventions were shown to decrease pain and promote healing in traumatized nipples. The inter-rater reliability for that study was by test/re-test amongst participating researcher midwives. The aim of the current study is to expand the understanding of LAT inter-rater reliability to include novice and expert assessors.

Methods: A convenience sample of twenty participants, including both novices (nine nursing students) and 11 self-identified experts, assessed four videos of breastfeeding dyads using the assessment tool, the LAT. Novice participants received a 2 h training session before final tool assessment. Each video was viewed three times, with a 3 min pause between viewings. All elements of the LAT that could be visually evaluated were included, with each element appearing in at least two of the videos.

Results: Acceptable internal consistency of the LAT tool was found, with Cronbach's alpha measuring 0.799, 0.740, 0.756 and 0.735 for each video, respectively. The reliability of the novice assessors improved over the course of the four videos, from 0.484 and 0.610 to 0.714 and 0.711. All of the experts had Cronbach's alpha numbers that were acceptable, ranging from 0.769 to 1.00.

Conclusions: Results indicate that experts perform much better using the tool than trained novices. However, the subsequent use of the tool resulted in the last two video assessments having an acceptable measure for the trained novice group. The LAT is a reliable tool for trained novices and experts to assess breastfeeding positioning and latch.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Reports
Nursing Reports NURSING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Conflict Management in Nursing: Analyzing Styles, Strategies, and Influencing Factors: A Systematic Review. Missing Fundamental Nursing Care: What's the Extent of Missed Oral Care? A Cross-Sectional Study. Psychometric Properties of the Lactation Assessment and Comprehensive Intervention Tool (LAT). Exploring Nurses' and Nursing Students' Attitudes Toward Coercive and Technological Measures in Mental Health: A Conceptual Framework and Study Protocol. Feasibility of Mental Health Triage Call Priority Prediction Using Machine Learning.
×
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