Development and Preliminary Psychometric Testing of the Drake Atrial Electrogram Assessment Survey: DAEGAS.

Jeanette Drake, Sandra K Hanneman, Melanie M McEwen, Elda G Ramirez, Vincent R Conti
{"title":"Development and Preliminary Psychometric Testing of the Drake Atrial Electrogram Assessment Survey: DAEGAS.","authors":"Jeanette Drake,&nbsp;Sandra K Hanneman,&nbsp;Melanie M McEwen,&nbsp;Elda G Ramirez,&nbsp;Vincent R Conti","doi":"10.1097/DCC.0000000000000545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Critical care nurses who care for postoperative cardiac surgery patients need such specialty knowledge as atrial electrograms (AEGs). An inadequate audit trail exists for psychometric performance of instruments to measure knowledge of AEGs.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to revise a previously tested instrument and assess evidence for content validity (content validity index), internal consistency (Cronbach α), and stability (correlation coefficient, r) reliability against the a priori criterion of 0.80.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The multiple-choice response, self-administered, paper-and-pencil instrument was revised to 20 items and named the Drake Atrial Electrogram Assessment Survey (DAEGAS). A panel of 6 AEG experts reviewed the DAEGAS for content validity evidence. The instrument was further revised to 19 items (13 knowledge and 6 AEG interpretation) and tested with 76 critical care nurses from the greater Houston metropolitan area.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The content validity index was 0.93. Cronbach α was .51, and test-retest r was 0.74. Cronbach α increased to .60 and r was 0.73 with removal of 3 items: 2 items with a negative item-total correlation and 1 item that was transitioned to a sample question.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Content validity evidence exceeded the a priori criterion. Internal consistency and stability reliability estimates did not meet the criterion, albeit the latter met the criterion recommended by psychometricians for a new instrument. Recommendations include further development of the DAEGAS to improve internal consistency estimates and testing for evidence of other forms of validity. Reliable and valid assessment of critical care nurse knowledge of AEGs will require improved psychometric performance of the DAEGAS.</p>","PeriodicalId":46646,"journal":{"name":"Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing","volume":"41 5","pages":"264-273"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Critical care nurses who care for postoperative cardiac surgery patients need such specialty knowledge as atrial electrograms (AEGs). An inadequate audit trail exists for psychometric performance of instruments to measure knowledge of AEGs.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to revise a previously tested instrument and assess evidence for content validity (content validity index), internal consistency (Cronbach α), and stability (correlation coefficient, r) reliability against the a priori criterion of 0.80.

Methods: The multiple-choice response, self-administered, paper-and-pencil instrument was revised to 20 items and named the Drake Atrial Electrogram Assessment Survey (DAEGAS). A panel of 6 AEG experts reviewed the DAEGAS for content validity evidence. The instrument was further revised to 19 items (13 knowledge and 6 AEG interpretation) and tested with 76 critical care nurses from the greater Houston metropolitan area.

Results: The content validity index was 0.93. Cronbach α was .51, and test-retest r was 0.74. Cronbach α increased to .60 and r was 0.73 with removal of 3 items: 2 items with a negative item-total correlation and 1 item that was transitioned to a sample question.

Discussion: Content validity evidence exceeded the a priori criterion. Internal consistency and stability reliability estimates did not meet the criterion, albeit the latter met the criterion recommended by psychometricians for a new instrument. Recommendations include further development of the DAEGAS to improve internal consistency estimates and testing for evidence of other forms of validity. Reliable and valid assessment of critical care nurse knowledge of AEGs will require improved psychometric performance of the DAEGAS.

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
德雷克心房电图评估调查的发展及初步心理测量学检验。
背景:护理心脏手术术后患者的重症监护护士需要心房电图(aeg)等专业知识。对于测量aeg知识的工具的心理测量性能存在不充分的审计跟踪。目的:本研究的目的是修订先前测试的工具,并评估内容效度(内容效度指数)、内部一致性(Cronbach α)和稳定性(相关系数r)的证据,以0.80的先验标准为信度。方法:将选择题、自填、纸笔量表修改为20项,命名为德雷克心房电图评估量表(DAEGAS)。一个由6名AEG专家组成的小组审查了DAEGAS的内容有效性证据。该工具进一步修订为19项(13项知识和6项AEG解释),并对来自大休斯顿市区的76名重症监护护士进行了测试。结果:内容效度指数为0.93。Cronbach α为0.51,重测r为0.74。Cronbach α增加到0.60,r为0.73,去除3个项目:2个项目与项目总数负相关,1个项目转换为样本问题。讨论:内容效度证据超出先验标准。内部一致性和稳定性可靠性估计不符合标准,尽管后者符合心理测量学家为新工具推荐的标准。建议包括进一步发展DAEGAS,以改进内部一致性估计和检验其他形式的有效性证据。可靠和有效的评估危重病护理护士的aeg知识将需要改进DAEGAS的心理测量性能。
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
2.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
102
期刊介绍: The primary purpose of Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing™ is to provide nurses with accurate, current, and relevant information and services to excel in critical care practice.
期刊最新文献
Improving Timeliness of Palliative Care Referrals Within the ICU: A Quality Improvement Project. What Do Pediatric Intensive Care Nurses Know About Pediatric Delirium? Risk Factors and Occurrence of Medical Adhesive-related Skin Injuries and Medical Device-related Pressure Ulcers With Fixing Endotracheal Tubes With Medical Adhesive Tape. In the Times of Scarcity. Mapping the Applications and Impacts of Virtual Reality in Critical Care: A Scoping Review.
×
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:604180095
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