{"title":"测量与医疗保健工作相关的情境因素:麦吉尔情境工具的开发。","authors":"Aliki Thomas, Christina St-Onge, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Catherine George, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Martine Brousseau, Joseph-Omer Dyer, Frances Gallagher, Miriam Lacasse, Isabelle Ledoux, Brigitte Vachon, Annie Rochette","doi":"10.1097/CEH.0000000000000514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Contextual factors can influence healthcare professionals' (HCPs) competencies, yet there is a scarcity of research on how to optimally measure these factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a comprehensive tool for HCPs to document the contextual factors likely to influence the maintenance, development, and deployment of professional competencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used DeVellis' 8-step process for scale development and Messick's unified theory of validity to inform the development and validation of the context tool. Building on results from a scoping review, we generated an item pool of contextual factors articulated around five themes: Leadership and Agency, Values, Policies, Supports, and Demands. A first version of the tool was pilot tested with 127 HCPs and analyzed using the classical test theory. A second version was tested on a larger sample (n = 581) and analyzed using the Rasch rating scale model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First version of the tool: we piloted 117 items that were grouped as per the themes related to contextual factors and rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach alpha for the set of 12 retained items per scale ranged from 0.75 to 0.94. Second version of the tool included 60 items: Rasch analysis showed that four of the five scales (ie, Leadership and Agency, Values, Policies, Supports) can be used as unidimensional scales, whereas the fifth scale (Demands) had to be split into two unidimensional scales (Demands and Overdemands).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Validity evidence documented for content and internal structure is encouraging and supports the use of the McGill context tool. Future research will provide additional validity evidence and cross-cultural translation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"18-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Health Care Work-Related Contextual Factors: Development of the McGill Context Tool.\",\"authors\":\"Aliki Thomas, Christina St-Onge, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Catherine George, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Martine Brousseau, Joseph-Omer Dyer, Frances Gallagher, Miriam Lacasse, Isabelle Ledoux, Brigitte Vachon, Annie Rochette\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CEH.0000000000000514\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Contextual factors can influence healthcare professionals' (HCPs) competencies, yet there is a scarcity of research on how to optimally measure these factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a comprehensive tool for HCPs to document the contextual factors likely to influence the maintenance, development, and deployment of professional competencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used DeVellis' 8-step process for scale development and Messick's unified theory of validity to inform the development and validation of the context tool. Building on results from a scoping review, we generated an item pool of contextual factors articulated around five themes: Leadership and Agency, Values, Policies, Supports, and Demands. A first version of the tool was pilot tested with 127 HCPs and analyzed using the classical test theory. A second version was tested on a larger sample (n = 581) and analyzed using the Rasch rating scale model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First version of the tool: we piloted 117 items that were grouped as per the themes related to contextual factors and rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach alpha for the set of 12 retained items per scale ranged from 0.75 to 0.94. Second version of the tool included 60 items: Rasch analysis showed that four of the five scales (ie, Leadership and Agency, Values, Policies, Supports) can be used as unidimensional scales, whereas the fifth scale (Demands) had to be split into two unidimensional scales (Demands and Overdemands).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Validity evidence documented for content and internal structure is encouraging and supports the use of the McGill context tool. Future research will provide additional validity evidence and cross-cultural translation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50218,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"18-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000514\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000514","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Measuring Health Care Work-Related Contextual Factors: Development of the McGill Context Tool.
Introduction: Contextual factors can influence healthcare professionals' (HCPs) competencies, yet there is a scarcity of research on how to optimally measure these factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a comprehensive tool for HCPs to document the contextual factors likely to influence the maintenance, development, and deployment of professional competencies.
Methods: We used DeVellis' 8-step process for scale development and Messick's unified theory of validity to inform the development and validation of the context tool. Building on results from a scoping review, we generated an item pool of contextual factors articulated around five themes: Leadership and Agency, Values, Policies, Supports, and Demands. A first version of the tool was pilot tested with 127 HCPs and analyzed using the classical test theory. A second version was tested on a larger sample (n = 581) and analyzed using the Rasch rating scale model.
Results: First version of the tool: we piloted 117 items that were grouped as per the themes related to contextual factors and rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach alpha for the set of 12 retained items per scale ranged from 0.75 to 0.94. Second version of the tool included 60 items: Rasch analysis showed that four of the five scales (ie, Leadership and Agency, Values, Policies, Supports) can be used as unidimensional scales, whereas the fifth scale (Demands) had to be split into two unidimensional scales (Demands and Overdemands).
Discussion: Validity evidence documented for content and internal structure is encouraging and supports the use of the McGill context tool. Future research will provide additional validity evidence and cross-cultural translation.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Continuing Education is a quarterly journal publishing articles relevant to theory, practice, and policy development for continuing education in the health sciences. The journal presents original research and essays on subjects involving the lifelong learning of professionals, with a focus on continuous quality improvement, competency assessment, and knowledge translation. It provides thoughtful advice to those who develop, conduct, and evaluate continuing education programs.