明尼苏达长住居民生活质量调查量化评估

IF 2.8 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Applied Research in Quality of Life Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1007/s11482-024-10357-2
Dongjuan Xu, Marissa Rurka, Teresa Lewis, Greg Arling
{"title":"明尼苏达长住居民生活质量调查量化评估","authors":"Dongjuan Xu,&nbsp;Marissa Rurka,&nbsp;Teresa Lewis,&nbsp;Greg Arling","doi":"10.1007/s11482-024-10357-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The objectives were to 1) systematically evaluate the Minnesota Long-Stay Resident Quality of Life (QoL) Survey based on validity, reliability, parsimony, relevance, and ability to discriminate facility performance; and 2) arrive at a new version of the survey and composite scoring approach.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data consisted of Minnesota nursing home resident QoL surveys, conducted through annual face-to-face interviews in 2017 (10,007 residents, 355 facilities), 2018 (9,884 residents, 352 facilities), and 2019 (9,896 residents, 347 facilities). Validity was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha values. Parsimony and relevance were assessed using content validity, construct validity, correlation, frequency of endorsement, and percentage missing. The ability to discriminate facility performance was assessed by examining the distributions of facility QoL scores.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The current domain structure has unbalanced items ranging from 4 to 9 across the eight domains; 28 items fit as well or better empirically under an alternative domain structure; and four items are redundant and could be dropped from the survey without loss of information. The current facility QoL scores do not discriminate well in facility performance because of the lack of item balance and a ceiling effect.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The proposed revisions result in a shorter, more balanced, more discriminating, and more valid QoL survey, while maintaining a high level of reliability. The revised survey allows the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and others who might adopt the survey, to better assess nursing facility performance on aspects of QoL that are meaningful to residents.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51483,"journal":{"name":"Applied Research in Quality of Life","volume":"19 5","pages":"2785 - 2799"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Quantitative Evaluation of the Minnesota Long-Stay Resident Quality of Life Survey\",\"authors\":\"Dongjuan Xu,&nbsp;Marissa Rurka,&nbsp;Teresa Lewis,&nbsp;Greg Arling\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11482-024-10357-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The objectives were to 1) systematically evaluate the Minnesota Long-Stay Resident Quality of Life (QoL) Survey based on validity, reliability, parsimony, relevance, and ability to discriminate facility performance; and 2) arrive at a new version of the survey and composite scoring approach.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data consisted of Minnesota nursing home resident QoL surveys, conducted through annual face-to-face interviews in 2017 (10,007 residents, 355 facilities), 2018 (9,884 residents, 352 facilities), and 2019 (9,896 residents, 347 facilities). Validity was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha values. Parsimony and relevance were assessed using content validity, construct validity, correlation, frequency of endorsement, and percentage missing. The ability to discriminate facility performance was assessed by examining the distributions of facility QoL scores.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The current domain structure has unbalanced items ranging from 4 to 9 across the eight domains; 28 items fit as well or better empirically under an alternative domain structure; and four items are redundant and could be dropped from the survey without loss of information. The current facility QoL scores do not discriminate well in facility performance because of the lack of item balance and a ceiling effect.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The proposed revisions result in a shorter, more balanced, more discriminating, and more valid QoL survey, while maintaining a high level of reliability. The revised survey allows the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and others who might adopt the survey, to better assess nursing facility performance on aspects of QoL that are meaningful to residents.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Research in Quality of Life\",\"volume\":\"19 5\",\"pages\":\"2785 - 2799\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Research in Quality of Life\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-024-10357-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Research in Quality of Life","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-024-10357-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 1)根据有效性、可靠性、简约性、相关性和区分机构绩效的能力,系统评估明尼苏达州长住居民生活质量(QoL)调查;2)得出新版调查和综合评分方法。方法数据包括明尼苏达州疗养院居民 QoL 调查,分别于 2017 年(10,007 位居民,355 家机构)、2018 年(9,884 位居民,352 家机构)和 2019 年(9,896 位居民,347 家机构)通过年度面对面访谈进行。有效性通过探索性和确认性因子分析进行评估。信度通过 Cronbach's alpha 值进行评估。通过内容效度、结构效度、相关性、认可频率和缺失百分比来评估解析性和相关性。通过研究机构 QoL 分数的分布情况,对机构绩效的判别能力进行了评估。结果目前的领域结构在 8 个领域中存在不平衡的项目,从 4 到 9 不等;28 个项目与其他领域结构的经验匹配度相同或更高;4 个项目是多余的,可以从调查中删除而不会丢失信息。由于缺乏项目平衡和天花板效应,目前的设施 QoL 分数不能很好地区分设施绩效。修订后的调查表可以让明尼苏达州人类服务部以及其他可能采用该调查表的机构更好地评估护理机构在对居民有意义的 QoL 方面的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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 Quantitative Evaluation of the Minnesota Long-Stay Resident Quality of Life Survey

Purpose

The objectives were to 1) systematically evaluate the Minnesota Long-Stay Resident Quality of Life (QoL) Survey based on validity, reliability, parsimony, relevance, and ability to discriminate facility performance; and 2) arrive at a new version of the survey and composite scoring approach.

Methods

Data consisted of Minnesota nursing home resident QoL surveys, conducted through annual face-to-face interviews in 2017 (10,007 residents, 355 facilities), 2018 (9,884 residents, 352 facilities), and 2019 (9,896 residents, 347 facilities). Validity was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha values. Parsimony and relevance were assessed using content validity, construct validity, correlation, frequency of endorsement, and percentage missing. The ability to discriminate facility performance was assessed by examining the distributions of facility QoL scores.

Results

The current domain structure has unbalanced items ranging from 4 to 9 across the eight domains; 28 items fit as well or better empirically under an alternative domain structure; and four items are redundant and could be dropped from the survey without loss of information. The current facility QoL scores do not discriminate well in facility performance because of the lack of item balance and a ceiling effect.

Conclusion

The proposed revisions result in a shorter, more balanced, more discriminating, and more valid QoL survey, while maintaining a high level of reliability. The revised survey allows the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and others who might adopt the survey, to better assess nursing facility performance on aspects of QoL that are meaningful to residents.

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
Applied Research in Quality of Life
Applied Research in Quality of Life SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: The aim of this journal is to publish conceptual, methodological and empirical papers dealing with quality-of-life studies in the applied areas of the natural and social sciences. As the official journal of the ISQOLS, it is designed to attract papers that have direct implications for, or impact on practical applications of research on the quality-of-life. We welcome papers crafted from interdisciplinary, inter-professional and international perspectives. This research should guide decision making in a variety of professions, industries, nonprofit, and government sectors, including healthcare, travel and tourism, marketing, corporate management, community planning, social work, public administration, and human resource management. The goal is to help decision makers apply performance measures and outcome assessment techniques based on concepts such as well-being, human satisfaction, human development, happiness, wellness and quality-of-life. The Editorial Review Board is divided into specific sections indicating the broad scope of practice covered by the journal. The section editors are distinguished scholars from many countries across the globe.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Longitudinal Associations between Cyberbullying Victimization and Cognitive and Affective Components of Subjective Well-Being in Adolescents: A Network Analysis Correction: Care Planning in Ageing Families During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Social Unrest in Hong Kong Housing Tenure and Subjective Wellbeing: The Importance of Public Housing “Withdrawal Syndrome”: The Effects of Acts of Microaggression in the Classroom on Racialized Students Parental Aggravation, Parenting Behaviors, Child Self-Control and Externalizing Problems in Singapore: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Sample
×
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