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。

IF 1.6 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-08 DOI:10.1097/CEH.0000000000000514
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
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:环境因素会影响医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)的能力,但关于如何以最佳方式衡量这些因素的研究却很少。本研究旨在为医护人员开发并验证一种综合工具,用于记录可能影响专业能力的保持、发展和部署的环境因素:我们采用德韦利斯的量表开发八步法和梅西克的统一效度理论来开发和验证情境工具。在范围审查结果的基础上,我们生成了一个围绕五个主题的背景因素项目库:领导与机构、价值观、政策、支持和需求。该工具的第一个版本在 127 名高级保健人员中进行了试点测试,并使用经典测试理论进行了分析。第二个版本在更大的样本(n = 581)中进行了测试,并使用 Rasch 评定量表模型进行了分析:第一版工具:我们试用了 117 个项目,这些项目按照与环境因素相关的主题进行分组,并采用 5 分制李克特量表进行评分。每个量表保留 12 个项目,其 Cronbach alpha 值在 0.75 至 0.94 之间。第二版工具包括 60 个项目:Rasch 分析表明,五个量表中的四个(即领导与机构、价值观、政策、支持)可以作为单维量表使用,而第五个量表(要求)必须拆分为两个单维量表(要求和过度要求):讨论:有关内容和内部结构的有效性证据令人鼓舞,并支持使用麦吉尔情境工具。未来的研究将提供更多的有效性证据和跨文化翻译。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Differences in Physician Performance and Self-rated Confidence on High- and Low-Stakes Knowledge Assessments in Board Certification. Paving the Way Forward for Evidence-Based Continuing Professional Development. Development of a Communication Skills Training to Enhance Effective Team Communication in Oncology. Evolution of a Continuing Professional Development Program Based on a Community of Practice Model for Health Care Professionals in Resource-Limited Settings. Where do Physiotherapists Search for Information? Barriers in Translating Scientific Information into Clinical Practice.
×
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