学生循证实践量表 S-EBPQ 阿拉伯语版在护理专业本科生中的心理测量研究

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1155/2024/6375596
Basmah F. Alharbi
{"title":"学生循证实践量表 S-EBPQ 阿拉伯语版在护理专业本科生中的心理测量研究","authors":"Basmah F. Alharbi","doi":"10.1155/2024/6375596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Background</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated the significance of evidence-based practice in improving patient care and outcomes. Therefore, integrating evidence-based practice into the health professions’ education curriculum has become a pedagogical priority. However, there is a lack of reliable and valid scales to measure students’ evidence-based practice usage, attitudes, knowledge, and skills in Arab countries. <i>Aim</i>. This study aims to examine the adapted Student Evidence-Based Practice Scale Questionnaire (S-EBPQ) validity at logical statistical level and reliability for use among students in Arabic context. <i>Methods</i>. This cross-sectional study included 233 undergraduate nursing students from a university in Saudi Arabia, who were recruited after translating and pilot testing the S-EBPQ. Three distinctive types of validity including conceptual, content, and face validity were assessed to determine the quality of the questionnaire items logically. Exploratory factor analyses were performed to examine the tool’s structural validity. Additionally, internal consistency was assessed to evaluate reliability. <i>Findings</i>. All items were considered relevant to Arab culture, and no changes were made to any items. The content validity indices for all items were above 0.80 as this was considered an acceptable value. The exploratory factor analysis identified the same four factors (practice, attitude, retrieving and reviewing evidence, and sharing and applying evidence-based practice). All KMO values for the individual items ≥0.876 were also well above the acceptable 0.6 limit. The four-factor structure explained a total variance of 64%, with factor load score <i>λ</i> ≥ 0.455. The total and subscale S-EBPQ scores showed evidence of reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.8. <i>Conclusions</i>. This study demonstrated the reliability and validity of the Arabic S-EBPQ version. The study has the potential to advance Arab countries’ understanding of evidence-based practice. S-EBPQ is a validated tool that can be used to assess nursing students’ knowledge of EBP practices. Since educators need to continually evaluate instructional and curricular design in order to meet contemporary nursing needs, this scale can enhance the educational process and enhance students’ competencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Psychometric Study of the Student Evidence-Based Practice Scale S-EBPQ-Arabic Version for Use among Undergraduate Nursing Students\",\"authors\":\"Basmah F. Alharbi\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/6375596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><i>Background</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated the significance of evidence-based practice in improving patient care and outcomes. Therefore, integrating evidence-based practice into the health professions’ education curriculum has become a pedagogical priority. However, there is a lack of reliable and valid scales to measure students’ evidence-based practice usage, attitudes, knowledge, and skills in Arab countries. <i>Aim</i>. This study aims to examine the adapted Student Evidence-Based Practice Scale Questionnaire (S-EBPQ) validity at logical statistical level and reliability for use among students in Arabic context. <i>Methods</i>. This cross-sectional study included 233 undergraduate nursing students from a university in Saudi Arabia, who were recruited after translating and pilot testing the S-EBPQ. Three distinctive types of validity including conceptual, content, and face validity were assessed to determine the quality of the questionnaire items logically. Exploratory factor analyses were performed to examine the tool’s structural validity. Additionally, internal consistency was assessed to evaluate reliability. <i>Findings</i>. All items were considered relevant to Arab culture, and no changes were made to any items. The content validity indices for all items were above 0.80 as this was considered an acceptable value. The exploratory factor analysis identified the same four factors (practice, attitude, retrieving and reviewing evidence, and sharing and applying evidence-based practice). All KMO values for the individual items ≥0.876 were also well above the acceptable 0.6 limit. The four-factor structure explained a total variance of 64%, with factor load score <i>λ</i> ≥ 0.455. The total and subscale S-EBPQ scores showed evidence of reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.8. <i>Conclusions</i>. This study demonstrated the reliability and validity of the Arabic S-EBPQ version. The study has the potential to advance Arab countries’ understanding of evidence-based practice. S-EBPQ is a validated tool that can be used to assess nursing students’ knowledge of EBP practices. Since educators need to continually evaluate instructional and curricular design in order to meet contemporary nursing needs, this scale can enhance the educational process and enhance students’ competencies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/6375596\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/6375596","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。以往的研究表明,循证实践在改善患者护理和治疗效果方面具有重要意义。因此,将循证实践纳入卫生专业教育课程已成为教学重点。然而,阿拉伯国家缺乏可靠有效的量表来衡量学生的循证实践使用情况、态度、知识和技能。研究目的本研究旨在检查经改编的学生循证实践量表问卷(S-EBPQ)在阿拉伯语环境下在学生中使用时在逻辑统计层面的有效性和可靠性。研究方法。这项横断面研究包括来自沙特阿拉伯一所大学的 233 名护理专业本科生。评估了三种不同类型的效度,包括概念效度、内容效度和表面效度,以确定问卷项目的逻辑质量。我们还进行了探索性因素分析,以检查工具的结构效度。此外,还评估了内部一致性以评价可靠性。调查结果所有项目都被认为与阿拉伯文化相关,没有对任何项目进行修改。所有项目的内容效度指数都高于 0.80,这被认为是一个可以接受的值。探索性因子分析确定了相同的四个因子(实践、态度、检索和审查证据以及分享和应用循证实践)。各单项的 KMO 值均≥0.876,也远远高于可接受的 0.6 限制。四因子结构解释了 64% 的总方差,因子载荷得分 λ ≥ 0.455。S-EBPQ的总分和分量表得分显示出可靠性,Cronbach's alpha≥0.8。结论本研究证明了阿拉伯语 S-EBPQ 版本的可靠性和有效性。该研究有可能促进阿拉伯国家对循证实践的理解。S-EBPQ 是一种经过验证的工具,可用于评估护理专业学生对 EBP 实践的了解程度。由于教育者需要不断评估教学和课程设计,以满足当代护理需求,因此该量表可以加强教育过程,提高学生的能力。
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
A Psychometric Study of the Student Evidence-Based Practice Scale S-EBPQ-Arabic Version for Use among Undergraduate Nursing Students

Background. Previous studies have demonstrated the significance of evidence-based practice in improving patient care and outcomes. Therefore, integrating evidence-based practice into the health professions’ education curriculum has become a pedagogical priority. However, there is a lack of reliable and valid scales to measure students’ evidence-based practice usage, attitudes, knowledge, and skills in Arab countries. Aim. This study aims to examine the adapted Student Evidence-Based Practice Scale Questionnaire (S-EBPQ) validity at logical statistical level and reliability for use among students in Arabic context. Methods. This cross-sectional study included 233 undergraduate nursing students from a university in Saudi Arabia, who were recruited after translating and pilot testing the S-EBPQ. Three distinctive types of validity including conceptual, content, and face validity were assessed to determine the quality of the questionnaire items logically. Exploratory factor analyses were performed to examine the tool’s structural validity. Additionally, internal consistency was assessed to evaluate reliability. Findings. All items were considered relevant to Arab culture, and no changes were made to any items. The content validity indices for all items were above 0.80 as this was considered an acceptable value. The exploratory factor analysis identified the same four factors (practice, attitude, retrieving and reviewing evidence, and sharing and applying evidence-based practice). All KMO values for the individual items ≥0.876 were also well above the acceptable 0.6 limit. The four-factor structure explained a total variance of 64%, with factor load score λ ≥ 0.455. The total and subscale S-EBPQ scores showed evidence of reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.8. Conclusions. This study demonstrated the reliability and validity of the Arabic S-EBPQ version. The study has the potential to advance Arab countries’ understanding of evidence-based practice. S-EBPQ is a validated tool that can be used to assess nursing students’ knowledge of EBP practices. Since educators need to continually evaluate instructional and curricular design in order to meet contemporary nursing needs, this scale can enhance the educational process and enhance students’ competencies.

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
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study on Nurse-Parent Partnership in the Pediatric Intensive Care Units Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Reduces Pain and Improves Internal Rotation after Arthroscopic Capsular Release: A Randomized Clinical Trial Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination Predicting the Risk of Fundus Lesions in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nomogram Model Health Experts’ Perspectives on Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs for Improvement of Hospital Care in the Dying Phase
×
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