Is the Self-Evaluation of Resilience a Valid Assessment to Measure Resilience in Healthcare? A Confirmatory validation Study in Italian Healthcare Settings.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-13 DOI:10.1177/01632787231170236
Annalisa Pennini, Rosario Caruso, Gianluca Conte, Maddalena De Maria, Lauren Nirta, Arianna Magon, Giampaolo Armellin
{"title":"Is the Self-Evaluation of Resilience a Valid Assessment to Measure Resilience in Healthcare? A Confirmatory validation Study in Italian Healthcare Settings.","authors":"Annalisa Pennini, Rosario Caruso, Gianluca Conte, Maddalena De Maria, Lauren Nirta, Arianna Magon, Giampaolo Armellin","doi":"10.1177/01632787231170236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the Self-Evaluation of Resilience (SEOR) scale is a promising tool for assessing resilience in healthcare, its psychometric structure has not yet been confirmed. This study aimed to assess and validate the four-factor psychometric structure of the SEOR. Between September 2020 and January 2021, cross-sectional data were collected from randomly selected healthcare workers, managers, and administrators from a predefined network of 70 healthcare facilities in 12 Italian regions. The sample size was based on a Monte Carlo simulation using estimates from the SEOR developmental study. Two confirmatory factor models (first-order and second-order) were predefined. The responders (<i>n</i> = 199, response rate, 81%) were healthcare workers (<i>n</i> = 99; 49.7%), managers (<i>n</i> = 86; 43.2%), and administrators (<i>n</i> = 14; 7%). The two confirmatory factor models each showed a good fit in explaining sample statistics, corroborating the capacity of the scale to provide a total score of resilience and sub-scores for organizational resilience, network-based resilience, skill-based resilience, and individual-based resilience. The Molenaar-Sijtsma coefficients (internal consistency) ranged between 0.889 and 0.927. The SEOR enables managers and policy-makers to comprehensively screen resilience in healthcare from an epidemiological perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"396-404"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231170236","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the Self-Evaluation of Resilience (SEOR) scale is a promising tool for assessing resilience in healthcare, its psychometric structure has not yet been confirmed. This study aimed to assess and validate the four-factor psychometric structure of the SEOR. Between September 2020 and January 2021, cross-sectional data were collected from randomly selected healthcare workers, managers, and administrators from a predefined network of 70 healthcare facilities in 12 Italian regions. The sample size was based on a Monte Carlo simulation using estimates from the SEOR developmental study. Two confirmatory factor models (first-order and second-order) were predefined. The responders (n = 199, response rate, 81%) were healthcare workers (n = 99; 49.7%), managers (n = 86; 43.2%), and administrators (n = 14; 7%). The two confirmatory factor models each showed a good fit in explaining sample statistics, corroborating the capacity of the scale to provide a total score of resilience and sub-scores for organizational resilience, network-based resilience, skill-based resilience, and individual-based resilience. The Molenaar-Sijtsma coefficients (internal consistency) ranged between 0.889 and 0.927. The SEOR enables managers and policy-makers to comprehensively screen resilience in healthcare from an epidemiological perspective.

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
弹性自我评价是衡量医疗保健弹性的有效评估吗?意大利卫生保健机构的验证性研究。
尽管恢复力自我评估量表是评估医疗保健恢复力的一个很有前途的工具,但其心理测量结构尚未得到证实。本研究旨在评估和验证SEOR的四因素心理测量结构。在2020年9月至2021年1月期间,从意大利12个地区的70家医疗机构的预定义网络中随机选择的医护人员、管理人员和管理人员,收集了横断面数据。样本量基于蒙特卡罗模拟,使用SEOR发展研究的估计值。预先定义了两个验证性因素模型(一阶和二阶)。应答者(n=199,应答率81%)为医护人员(n=99;49.7%)、管理人员(n=86;43.2%)和管理人员(n=14;7%)。这两个验证性因素模型在解释样本统计数据时均表现出良好的拟合性,证实了量表提供复原力总分和组织复原力、网络复原力、技能复原力和个人复原力分的能力。Molenaar Sijtsma系数(内部一致性)在0.889和0.927之间。SEOR使管理者和决策者能够从流行病学的角度全面筛选医疗保健的弹性。
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
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Mothers With a Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design Study. Single-Case Study of the Feasibility of Parent Training and Change in Parenting in Comparison to Baseline, in Adolescents With a Major Depressive Disorder. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Analysis of Count and Rate Data in Single-case Eperimental Designs: A Step-by-step Tutorial. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).
×
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