期刊文献+

临床护士反思能力量表的汉化及信效度检验 被引量:6

The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Clinical Nurses'Reflective Ability Scale
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的汉化临床护士反思能力量表并检验其信效度。方法获取原量表作者授权后,基于Brislin翻译模型对日文版临床护士反思能力量表进行直译、回译及文化调适,形成中文版临床护士反思能力量表。应用中文版量表对424名护士进行调查,并选取50名护士进行重测,邀请7名专家进行内容效度评价,以检验量表的信效度。结果中文版临床护士反思能力量表包括回顾护理实践、反思护理实践、拓展护理实践3个维度,19个条目。量表层面的专家效度指数为0.947,条目层面的专家效度指数为0.857~1.000。探索性因子分析提取3个公因子,累计方差贡献率为51.865%。验证性因子分析显示:χ^(2)/df=1.602,RMSEA=0.052,CFI=0.941,GFI=0.902,IFI=0.942,TLI=0.932。量表的Cronbach'sα系数为0.901,重测信度为0.948。结论中文版临床护士反思能力量表信效度较好,可作为国内评估临床护士反思能力的工具。 Objective To translate the Clinical Nurses'Reflective Ability Scale into Chinese and to test its reliability and validity.Methods With the authorization of the original author,literal translation,back translation and cultural adjustment of the Clinical Nurses'Reflective Ability Scale were carried out based on the Brislin translation model.A total of 424 nurses were recruited and investigated by the Chinese version scale,and 50 nurses were randomly selected to retest.Besides,seven experts evaluated the content validity to test the reliability and validity of the scale.Results The Chinese version scale included 19 items and three dimensions:review,reflection and expanding nursing practice.The range of S-CVI was 0.947 and the I-CVI was ranged from 0.857 to 1.000.Three common factors were extracted by exploratory factor analysis,and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 51.865%.Confirmatory factor analysis showed:χ^(2)/df=1.602,RMSEA=0.052,CFI=0.941,GFI=0.902,IFI=0.942,TLI=0.932.The total Cronbach'sαcoefficient of the scale was 0.901,and retest reliability coefficient were 0.948.Conclusion The Chinese version of the scale has good reliability and validity in the domestic cultural background and could be deemed as a valid instrument for assessing reflective ability of clinical nurses.
作者 邵李姣 王俊霞 吴田瑞 赵煜华 葛淑怡 SHAO Lijiao;WANG Junxia;WU Tianrui;ZHAO Yuhua;GE Shuyi
出处 《中华护理教育》 CSCD 北大核心 2023年第4期462-466,共5页 Chinese Journal of Nursing Education
关键词 护士 问卷调查 因素分析 统计学 反思 信度 效度 Nurses Questionnaires Factor Analysis,Statistical Reflective Reliability Validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献26

  • 1Foley K. Geriatric medicine: an evidence-based approach, 4th ed [J].J Anti Aging Med, 2003,6 (2) : 139. 被引量:1
  • 2Malani PN. Functional s~s assessment in thepreoperative evaluation of older adults [J]. JAMA, 2009,302 ( 14 ) : 1582- 1583. 被引量:1
  • 3Fillenbaum GG, Smyer MA. The development, validity, and reliability of the OARS multidimensional functional assessment questionnaire [J]. J Gerontol, 1981,36 (4) : 428-434. 被引量:1
  • 4Lawton MP, Moss M, Fulcomer M, et al. A research and service oriented multilevel assessment instrument [J]. J Gerontol, 1982, 37( 1 ) :91-99. 被引量:1
  • 5Gurland B, Kuriansky J, Sharpe L, et al. The comprehensive assessment and referral evaluation (CARE)-rationale, development and reliability[ J]. Int J Aginh Hum Dev, 1977.8 ( 1 ) : 9-42. 被引量:1
  • 6Charter RA. Sample size requirements for precise estimates of reliability, generalizability, and validity coefficients [J]. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 1999,21 (4) : 559-566. 被引量:1
  • 7Cicchetti DV. Methodological commentary the precision of reliability and validity estimates re-visited: distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements [J]. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 2001,23 (5) : 695- 700. 被引量:1
  • 8北京市老龄工作委员会办公室.北京市2013年老年人口信息和老龄事业发展状况报告[R/OL].(2014—09—30)[2015—07—29].http:Hzhengwu.bering.gov.cn/tjxx/tjgb/t1369122.htm. 被引量:1
  • 9Go-ldsteln J, Hubbard RE, Moorhouse P, et al. The validation of a care partner-derived frailty index based upon comprehensive geriatric assessment (CP-FI-CGA) in emergency medical services and geriatric ambulatory care [J]. Age Ageing, 2015,44 (2): 327-330. 被引量:1
  • 10Ellis G, Marshall T, Ritchie C-. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in the emergency department [J]. Clin Interv Aging, 2014, 24 ( 9 ) : 2033 -2043. 被引量:1

共引文献35

同被引文献53

引证文献6

二级引证文献1

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