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)

579

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] 张玺, 黄静, 汪天华, 李燕, 曹沅, 李明惠, 余立平. 发育障碍儿童养育心理韧性量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(4): 6-11.
[2] 丁心舒, 孙乐菲, 高伟, 鲁琦, 闫畅, 刘德山. 矛盾年龄歧视量表在社区老年人中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(7): 12-16.
[3] 袁华君, 段功香, 陈路桥, 王慧清. 癌症终末期患者救护意愿量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(6): 73-78.
[4] 谭如意, 龙秀红, 马红利, 陈兰. 腰椎间盘突出症患者中医康复健康信息获取行为量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(5): 67-72.
[5] 张钰琳, 朱向伟, 洪慧芳, 卢根娣. 重大传染病突发事件中护士伦理困境量表的研制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(4): 1-6.
[6] 宋彩妮, 郑尧, 宋英, 刘丽华. 癌症照顾者信息隐瞒量表的汉化及在肺癌患者照顾者中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(3): 17-20.
[7] 张国春, 李海云, 褚梁梁, 程雪, 王君芝. 产科护士围产期姑息照护知信行量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(2): 6-11.
[8] 罗铎麟, 杨春清, 高萍, 胡清文, 徐小群. 2型糖尿病心理痛苦量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(19): 24-30.
[9] 简称苹, 张汉卿, 王丽英, 田海艳, 彭向东, 张亚楠, 蔡德芳. 本科护生自我调节学习策略量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(18): 12-15.
[10] 王晓宁, 缪群芳, 李培清, 辛思莹, 黄姚姚. 自杀公众污名量表的汉化及在中国公众人群中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(17): 1-7.
[11] 朱亚晋, 王朝辉, 代明珠, 王琳, 孙莹莹. 临床护士文化能力量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(17): 46-50.
[12] 张玉霞, 樊晓辉, 王雪皎, 刘雨安, 李乐之. 正念自我照护量表的汉化及其在ICU护士中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(15): 46-51.
[13] 陶伏莹, 蒋佳男, 付东英, 田莹莹. 基于保护动机理论手术室护士外科手术烟雾防护意愿量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(15): 73-78.
[14] 杨晨, 宋慧娟, 覃承诃, 杨静华, 龚雪, 黄文嫣. 骨搬运患者出院准备度评估量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(14): 1-5.
[15] 项倩妹, 唐惠艳, 王建新, 张慧慧, 刘欣雨, 李春辉. 儿科专科护士核心能力量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(14): 74-78.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
No Suggested Reading articles found!