期刊文献+

临床护士批判性思维评估量表的汉化与信效度检验 被引量:1

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Critical Thinking Diagnostic of frontline nurses
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的汉化临床护士批判性思维评估量表,并检验其信效度,为临床护士批判性思维能力测评提供工具。方法遵循Brislin翻译模型,对临床护士批判性思维评估量表进行翻译、回译及文化调适,形成中文版量表。便利抽取临床护士242人进行调查,评价量表信效度。结果中文版量表包括问题识别、护理决策、护理优先次序、护理计划、护理计划实施与改进5个维度共16个条目。探索因子分析结果显示,5个公因子的累计方差贡献率为86.472%。总量表Cronbach′sα系数为0.969,折半系数为0.925,重测信度为0.835。结论中文版临床护士批判性思维评估量表具有良好的信效度,可用于评估临床护士批判性思维能力。 Objective To translate the Critical Thinking Diagnostic of frontline nurses(CTDfn)into Chinese and to evaluate its reliability and validity,aiming to provide a tool for assessing critical thinking ability of clinical nurses.Methods The Chinese version of the CTDfn was developed through translation,back-translation and cultural adaption following the Brislin translation model.Then,a convenience sample of 242 frontline nurses were investigated to test the reliability and validity.Results The Chinese version of the CTDfn included 5 dimensions of problem recognition,clinical decision making,prioritization,development of plan of care,and plan of care implementation and improvement,totaling 16 items.Exploratory factor analysis identified 5 factors,explaining 86.472%of the total variance.The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the total scale was 0.969,the split-half reliability was 0.925,and the test-retest reliability was 0.835.Conclusion The Chinese version of the CTDfn has good reliability and validity,and it can be used to assess critical thinking ability of clinical nurses in China.
作者 张萍 高淳海 瞿茜 吴玉洁 王露 胡婉婷 Zhang Ping;Gao Chunhai;Qu Qian;Wu Yujie;Wang Lu;Hu Wanting(Department of Pediatrics,Tongji Hospital,Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology,Wuhan 430030,China)
出处 《护理学杂志》 CSCD 北大核心 2024年第1期64-67,共4页 Journal of Nursing Science
关键词 临床护士 批判性思维 护理决策 护理评估 护理计划 量表 信度 效度 frontline nurses critical thinking clinical decision making nursing assessment plan of care scale reliability validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献29

  • 1任海,王凯珍,肖淑红,赵书祥,陈国强.论体育资源配置模式——社会经济条件变革下的中国体育改革(一)[J].天津体育学院学报,2001,16(2):1-5. 被引量:185
  • 2Wynd CA,Schmidt B,Schaefer MA.Two quantitative approachesfor estimating content validity[J].Western J Nurs Res,2003,25(5):508–518.
  • 3Lindell 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.
  • 4Lawshe CH.A quantitative approach to content validity[J].Personne Psychol,1975,28(4):563–575.
  • 5Hambleton 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.
  • 6Martuza VR.Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education[M].Boston:Allyn andBacon,1977:275–293.
  • 7Lynn MR.Determination and quantification of content validity[J].Nursing Res,1986,35(6):382–385.
  • 8Davis LL.Instrument review:Getting the most from your panel ofexperts[J].Appl Nurs Res,1992,5(4):194–197.
  • 9Polit 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.
  • 10Facione PA, Facione NC, Giancario CAF. The California critical thinking disposition inventory, CCTDI scoring supplement. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press, 2000.

共引文献3226

同被引文献15

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