Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nurses' evidence‐based knowledge and self‐efficacy in venous access device insertion and management: Development and validation of a questionnaire

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          To develop and psychometrically test an instrument to assess nurses' evidence‐based knowledge and self‐efficacy regarding insertion and management of venous access devices (short peripheral catheter (SPC), long peripheral catheter/midline (LPC) and PICC) and the management of totally implantable central venous catheter (Port) in adult patients.

          Design

          Multicenter cross‐sectional observational study with questionnaire development and psychometric testing (validity and reliability).

          Methods

          An evidence‐based instrument was developed including a 34‐item knowledge section and an 81‐item self‐efficacy section including four device‐specific parts. Nineteen experts evaluated content validity. A pilot study was conducted with 86 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices were calculated for knowledge items. Confirmatory factor analyses tested the dimensionality of the self‐efficacy section according to the development model. Construct validity was tested through known group validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha coefficient for unidimensional scales and omega coefficients for multidimensional scales.

          Results

          Content validity indices and results from the pilot study were excellent with all the item‐content validity indices >0.78 and scale‐content validity index ranging from 0.96 to 0.99. The survey was completed by 425 nurses. Difficulty and discrimination indices for knowledge items were acceptable with most items (58.8%) showing desirable difficulty and most items (58.8%) with excellent (35.3%) or good (23.5%) discrimination power, and appropriate to the content. The dimensionality of the model posited for self‐efficacy was confirmed with adequate fit indices (e.g., comparative fit index range 0.984–0.996, root mean square error of approximation range 0.054–0.073). Construct validity was determined and reliability was excellent with alpha values ranging from 0.843 to 0.946 and omega coefficients ranging from 0.833 to 0.933. Therefore, a valid and reliable tool based on updated guidelines is made available to evaluate nurses’ competencies for venous access insertion and management.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

          (2013)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.

            Nurse researchers typically provide evidence of content validity for instruments by computing a content validity index (CVI), based on experts' ratings of item relevance. We compared the CVI to alternative indexes and concluded that the widely-used CVI has advantages with regard to ease of computation, understandability, focus on agreement of relevance rather than agreement per se, focus on consensus rather than consistency, and provision of both item and scale information. One weakness is its failure to adjust for chance agreement. We solved this by translating item-level CVIs (I-CVIs) into values of a modified kappa statistic. Our translation suggests that items with an I-CVI of .78 or higher for three or more experts could be considered evidence of good content validity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study

              Background Aim of the COSMIN study (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was to develop a consensus-based checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. We present the COSMIN checklist and the agreement of the panel on the items of the checklist. Methods A four-round Delphi study was performed with international experts (psychologists, epidemiologists, statisticians and clinicians). Of the 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate (63%). Panel members were asked to rate their (dis)agreement with each proposal on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel members indicated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. Results Consensus was reached on the inclusion of the following measurement properties: internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (including structural validity, hypotheses testing and cross-cultural validity), criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability. The latter was not considered a measurement property. The panel also reached consensus on how these properties should be assessed. Conclusions The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peer-reviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                m.piredda@unicampus.it
                Journal
                Nurs Open
                Nurs Open
                10.1002/(ISSN)2054-1058
                NOP2
                Nursing Open
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2054-1058
                05 July 2024
                July 2024
                : 11
                : 7 ( doiID: 10.1002/nop2.v11.7 )
                : e2177
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit Nursing Science Campus Bio‐Medico di Roma University Rome Italy
                [ 2 ] Department of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit Nursing in Palliative Care Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio‐Medico Rome Italy
                [ 3 ] Department of Life Health Sciences and Health Professions Link Campus University Rome Italy
                [ 4 ] Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Department of Medicine and Surgery Università Campus Bio‐Medico di Roma Rome Italy
                [ 5 ] Department of Biomedicine and Prevention Tor Vergata University Rome Italy
                [ 6 ] Department of Nursing Professions University Hospital of Tor Vergata Rome Italy
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Michela Piredda, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit Nursing Science, Università Campus Bio‐Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21–00128 Rome, Italy.

                Email: m.piredda@ 123456unicampus.it

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5998-476X
                Article
                NOP22177 NOP-2023-Sep-1904.R2
                10.1002/nop2.2177
                11225607
                38967938
                bb5453ea-39d2-4d15-acc0-7fd038cda5aa
                © 2024 The Author(s). Nursing Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 20 March 2024
                : 28 September 2023
                : 24 April 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 5, Pages: 18, Words: 11400
                Funding
                Funded by: Center of Excellence for Nursing Scholarship, Rome Italy
                Award ID: 2.21.14
                Categories
                Empirical Research Quantitative
                Empirical Research Quantitative
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                July 2024
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.5 mode:remove_FC converted:05.07.2024

                central venous catheters,nurses,peripheral catheterization,psychometric properties,questionnaire,vascular access devices

                Comments

                Comment on this article