以质量求发展，以服务铸品牌

护理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (10): 52-56.doi: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2021.10.052

• 调查研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

多准则护理决策评价量表的汉化及信效度检验

刘云访a, 喻姣花b, 李素云c, 柯卉d, 晏蓉e, 赵诗雨f   

  1. 华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院 a.胸外科; b.护理部; c.外科; d.肝胆外科; e.骨科; f.手术室,湖北 武汉 430022
  • 收稿日期:2020-08-10 出版日期:2021-05-25 发布日期:2021-06-09
  • 通讯作者: 喻姣花（1966-）,女,湖北武汉人,本科学历,主任护师。E-mail：yujiaohua2008@126.com
  • 作者简介:刘云访（1994-）,女,湖北襄阳人,硕士研究生,护士。 刘云访（1994-）,女,湖北襄阳人,硕士研究生,护士。
  • 基金资助:
    湖北省技术创新专项（2018ADC067）; 湖北省技术创新专项（2018ADC067）

Translation of Multi-criteria Nursing Decision-making Evaluation Scale and Its Reliability and Validity

LIU Yun-fanga, YU Jiao-huab, LI Su-yunc, KE Huid, YAN Ronge, ZHAO Shi-yuf   

  1. a. Dept. of Thoracic Surgery; b. Dept. of Nursing Administration; c. Dept. of Surgery; d. Dept. of Hepatobiliary;e. Dept. of Orthopedics; f. Operating Room, Union Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical School, Huazhong University of Science, Technology, Wuhan430022, China
  • Received:2020-08-10 Online:2021-05-25 Published:2021-06-09

PDF (PC)

434

赞

摘要： 目的 汉化多准则护理决策评价量表,并检验其信度和效度。方法 采用Brislin模式对多准则护理决策评价量表进行翻译和跨文化调适,对武汉市某三级甲等医院177名有护理决策经验的护理工作者进行问卷调查,分析中文版多准则护理决策评价量表的信度和效度。结果 中文版多准则护理决策评价量表共15个条目,探索性因子分析萃取6个公因子,累积方差贡献率为71.929%;条目内容效度为0.833~1.000,平均内容效度为0.978;量表总Cronbach α系数为0.808,各维度Cronbach α系数为0.685~0.803。结论 中文版多准则护理决策评价量表具有良好的信度和效度,可以作为测量护理干预措施整体价值的评估工具,为临床护理工作者科学、合理决策提供依据。

关键词: EVIDEM结构框架, 多准则决策, 护理决策, 信度, 效度

Abstract: Objective To translate the EVIDEM multi-criteria nursing decision-making evaluation scale and test its reliability and validity. Methods The EVIDEM multi-criteria nursing decision-making evaluation scale was translated and adapted according to Chinese culture based on the Brislin translation mode. And the reliability and validity of the Chinese version were tested among 177 of the nursing staff with experience in nursing decision-making in a tertiary grade A hospital in Wuhan. Results The Chinese version of the scale consisted of 15 items. The exploratory factor analysis extracted 6 common factors, which could explain 71.929% of the total variance. The item-content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.833 to 1.000, and the average scale-content validity index was 0.978. The Cronbach’s α for the total scale was 0.808,and the Cronbach’s α of each dimension ranged from 0.685 to 0.803. Conclusion The Chinese version of the EVIDEM multi-criteria nursing decision-making evaluation scale has acceptable reliability and validity, which can comprehensively evaluate the overall value of nursing intervention and provide reference for clinically nursing decision-making.

Key words: EVIDEM Framework, multi-criteria decision-making, nursing decision-making, reliability, validity

中图分类号: 

  • R47
[1] Tiffen J, Corbridge SJ, Slimmer L.Enhancing Clinical Decision Making: Development of a Contiguous Definition and Conceptual Framework[J].JProf Nurs, 2014, 30(5):399-405. DOI:10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.01.006.
[2] 吴觅之,潘红英,王珍.标准化术语在护理决策支持系统知识库中的应用进展[J].护理学报,2019,26(17):27-30.DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2019.17.027.
[3] 刘晓娜,潘红英.护理决策支持系统的应用进展[J].中华护理杂志,2018,53(6):735-739. DOI:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2018.06.019.
[4] 罗珍,熊照玉,陈海燕.新生儿PICC专科护士对临床护理决策认识与体验的质性研究[J].护理学杂志,2019,34(8):30-33. DOI:10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2019.0 8.030.
[5] Glassman A, Chalkidou K, Giedion U, et al.Priority-setting Institutions in Health:Recommendations from a Center for Global Development Working Group[J]. Glob Heart, 2012, 7(1):13-34. DOI:10.1016/j.gheart.2012.01.007.
[6] The EVIDEM Collaboration.EVIDEM 10th Edition Adapt&pilot[EB/OL].(2017-09-10).[2019-06-19]. https://www.evidem.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/E VIDEM-10th-Edition-Adapt-and-pilot.pdf.
[7] Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al.Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with Multicriteria Decision Analyses(MCDA):Field Testing of the EVIDEM Framework for Coverage Decisions by a Public Payer in Canada[J]. BMC Health Serv Res,2011,11:329-341.DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-11-329.
[8] Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al.Field Testing of a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Framework for Coverage of a Screening Test for Cervical Cancer in South Africa[J]. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2012, 10(1):2-13.DOI:10.1186/1478-7547-10-2.
[9] Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, et al.Implementation of EUnetHTA Core Model in Lombardia:the VTS Framework[J]. IntJTechnol Assess Health Care,2014,30(1):105-112. DOI:10.1017/S0266462313000639.
[10] Castro JHE, Goetghebeur M, Moreno-Mattar O.Testing Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for More Transparent Resource-allocation Decision Making in Colombia[J]. IntJTechnol Assess Health Care, 2016, 32(4):307-314. DOI:10.1017/S0266462316000350.
[11] Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al.Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Efficient Health Care Decision Making with Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Applying the EVIDEM Framework to Medicines Appraisal[J]. Med Decis Making, 2012, 32(2):376-388. DOI:10.1177/0272989X11416870.
[12] Jiménez A, Ais A, Beaudet A, et al.Determining the Value Contribution of Selexipag for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension(PAH) in Spain Using Reflective Multi-criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA)[J]. OrphanetJRare Dis, 2018, 13(1):220. DOI:10.1186/s13023-018-0966-4.
[13] Wagner M, Khoury H, Willet J, et al.Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases:Analysis of Issues and Policies,And Context-Specific Adaptation[J]. Pharmacoeconomics, 2016, 34(3):285-301. DOI:10.1007/s40273-015-0340-5.
[14] 单君,吴娟,顾艳荭,等.多准则决策分析构建呼吸机相关肺炎集束干预策略的研究[J].护士进修杂志, 2011,26(10):883-885.DOI:10.16821/j.cnki.hsjx.20 11.10.009.
[15] Brislin RW.Back-translation for Cross-cultural Reseach[J].JCross Cult Psychol, 1970, 1(3):185-216.
[16] 郭金玉,李峥.量表引进的过程及评价标准[J].中华护理杂志, 2012, 47(3):283-285.DOI:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2012.03.039.
[17] 吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务—SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2010:157-298.
[18] 金瑜. 心理测量[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[19] Marsh K, Ijzerman M, Thokala P, et al.Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making-emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force[J].Value Health, 2016, 19(2):125-137. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016.
[1] 王琦, 李领侠, 和巾杰, 郑华东, 米晓芬, 胡艳粉. 医护人员低血糖症知信行问卷的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 9-13.
[2] 郑丹丹, 任静, 李艳, 徐倩. 母亲感知育儿自我效能量表的汉化及其在早产儿母亲中的信效度研究[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 54-57.
[3] 刘瑜, 周春兰, 周君桂, 邓水娟, 何任红. 神经源性膀胱患者自我管理量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(7): 64-68.
[4] 信博, 赵秋利, 王楠楠, 马得欣, 邢慧, 吴燕妮, 于洋. 消化系统癌症高危人群预防主动行为测评量表的编制与信效度评价[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(5): 6-11.
[5] 侯艳, 张云, 高蓉, 刘宝吉, 赵卿. 恶性肿瘤患者疼痛认知量表的汉化和信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(4): 62-66.
[6] 夏杰, 段霞, 张佳男, 于婵, 王可可. 高危孕产妇病情预警评估表的构建及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(4): 67-72.
[7] 邓丽萍, 谢小华, 王亚萍, 杨洁, 潘璐, 马家惠, 肖静怡, 熊小云. 脑卒中高危人群保护动机问卷的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(8): 1-5.
[8] 刘丽萍, 周春兰, 吴艳妮, 从维莲, 胡明钰, 李晓霞. 情绪抑制量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(8): 6-10.
[9] 刘丹娜, 詹艳, 胡德雄, 沈婧, 王劼琼, 张淇. 中文完整版灵性需求问卷在慢性心力衰竭患者中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(24): 6-10.
[10] 何红艳, 周体, 曾登芬, 马燕兰. 临床护理教师胜任力评价量表的研制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(24): 11-14.
[11] 凌伟明, 张振瑜, 张远妮, 姚卫光. 护士群体互联网+护理服务使用意愿影响因素量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(23): 1-4.
[12] 李冬, 余丽丽, 张维, 王静, 李莉. 中文版医疗社会支持量表应用于不孕症患者的信效度分析[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(20): 66-70.
[13] 杜荣欣, 张晓红, 刘艳华, 张芳, 徐娟. 永久性肠造口患者延续性护理需求量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(14): 1-4.
[14] 潘国翠, 李梅. 决策疲劳量表的汉化及其应用于ICU患者家属的信度效度评价[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(12): 38-41.
[15] 李玉, 刘俐惠, 石增霞, 亢东琴, 陈志琦, 王自盼, 王璟, 郭红, 岳树锦. 中文版肿瘤信息满意度量表在头颈肿瘤患者中的信效度分析[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(9): 10-15.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
[1] 杨秀梅,臧小彪,尹安春. 冰敷联合依沙吖啶冷湿敷治疗盐酸胺碘酮注射液所致静脉炎效果观察[J]. 护理学报, 2012, 19(2): 66 -67 .
[2] 彭爱萍,包良笑. 广东省骨科专科护士在单病种质量管理中的工作现状分析[J]. 护理学报, 2012, 19(13): 30 -31 .
[3] 王小花,邓远飞,陈霞,曾文双,梁桂玲,乔珊,刘远健. 假性延髓麻痹伴中度吞咽障碍患者2种喂养途径的效果观察[J]. 护理学报, 2013, 20(11): 58 -60 .
[4] 刘兴红,喻姣花,李梦圆,赵诗雨. 手部肌腱损伤患者康复进程的随访研究[J]. 护理学报, 0, (): 66 -70 .
[5] 吴文婧, 宫润琪. 初产妇产褥期护理中应用格林模式探究[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 28(最新录用): 1 -4 .
[6] 罗爱红,岳丽青,黄琼辉. 消毒供应中心信息管理系统中监测管理模块的功能优化[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(13): 33 -36 .
[7] 邵茜茜, 刘东英. 肺癌患者肺叶切除术后症状群调查研究[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(18): 1 -4 .
[8] . 《护理学报》第18期继续教育思考题[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(18): 57 -58 .
[9] 卢舒颖, 刘宁, 魏璐华, 梁冬梅, 李妍. 产后出血预防及管理的最佳证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(12): 18 -22 .
[10] 刘小成, 应文娟, 刘智利, 郑锐华, 许诺, 刘慧. 生命末期患者性与亲密关系评估的最佳证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(12): 23 -27 .