期刊文献+

用药接近失误报告障碍量表的修订及信度效度检验 被引量:4

Revision, validity and reliability of Chinese version of the Barriers to Near-Miss Reporting Scale
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:对中文版给药错误报告障碍量表进行修订,形成用药接近失误报告障碍量表,检验其信度、效度。方法:结合回顾文献、预实验和专家咨询结果对量表进行修订;采用方便抽样法对唐山市某三级甲等医院540名病区护士进行调查,以检验量表的信度、效度。结果:用药接近失误报告障碍量表共有24个条目,条目水平I-CVI值为0.833~1.000,量表水平内容效度指数(S-CVI/Ave)为0.960;探索性因子分析提取6个公因子,累积方差贡献率为76.389%;量表的Cronbach’sα系数为0.951,6个维度的Cronbach’sα系数为0.832~0.918,量表的重测信度为0.802;各维度的重测信度为0.608~0.944。结论:用药接近失误报告障碍量表具有良好的信度、效度,可作为评估用药接近失误报告障碍的工具。 Objective:To revise the Chinese version of the Barriers to Medication Administration Error Reporting Scale to form the Barriers to Near-Miss Reporting Scale,and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the revised version.Methods:The scale was revised based on the literature review,preliminary experiment and expert consultation.Totally 540 nurses in a tertiary hospital in Tangshan City was investigated by convenient sampling to test the reliability and validity of the scale.Results:There were 24 items in the Barriers to Near-Miss Reporting Scale.The I-CVI was 0.833~1.000,and the S-CVI/Ave was 0.960.The extracted 6 factors by exploratory factor analysis explained 76.389%of the total variation.The overall Cronbach’sαcoefficient of the scale was 0.951,the Cronbach’sαcoefficient of six dimensions ranged from 0.832 to 0.918.The test-retest reliability of the scale was 0.802,and the test-retest reliability of six dimensions ranged from 0.608 to 0.944.Conclusion:The Barriers to NearMiss Reporting Scale is a valid and reliable questionnaire to evaluate the barriers of reporting medication near-miss.
作者 于淼 王建辉 YU Miao;WANG Jianhui(College of Nursing and Rehabilitation,North China University of Science and Technology,Tangshan,Hebei province,063210,China)
出处 《中国护理管理》 CSCD 北大核心 2020年第1期22-25,共4页 Chinese Nursing Management
关键词 用药接近失误 报告障碍 量表修订 信度 效度 medication near-miss reporting barriers scale revise reliability validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献54

  • 1James Killingsworth.WHO全球患者安全联盟[J].中国医院,2005,9(12):2-3. 被引量:52
  • 2刘宏.综合评价中指标权重确定方法的研究[J].河北工业大学学报,1996,25(4):75-80. 被引量:60
  • 3Wynd CA,Schmidt B,Schaefer MA.Two quantitative approachesfor estimating content validity[J].Western J Nurs Res,2003,25(5):508–518. 被引量:1
  • 4Lindell MK,Brandt CJ,Whitney DJ.A revised index of interrateragreement for multi-item ratings of a single target[J].Appl PsycholMeasurem,1999,23(2):127–135. 被引量:1
  • 5Lawshe CH.A quantitative approach to content validity[J].Personne Psychol,1975,28(4):563–575. 被引量:1
  • 6Hambleton RK,Swaminathan H,Algina J,et al.Criterion-referencedtesting and measurement:Review of technical issues anddevelopments[J].Rev Educat Res,1978,48(1):11–22. 被引量:1
  • 7Martuza VR.Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education[M].Boston:Allyn andBacon,1977:275–293. 被引量:1
  • 8Lynn MR.Determination and quantification of content validity[J].Nursing Res,1986,35(6):382–385. 被引量:1
  • 9Davis LL.Instrument review:Getting the most from your panel ofexperts[J].Appl Nurs Res,1992,5(4):194–197. 被引量:1
  • 10Polit DF,Beck CT.The content validity index:are you sure youknow what’s being reported?critique and recommendations[J].Res Nurs Health,2006,29(5):489–497. 被引量:1

共引文献1088

同被引文献26

引证文献4

二级引证文献6

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部