Premium
Psychometric evaluation of the English language Person‐centred Climate Questionnaire – staff version
Author(s) -
EDVARDSSON DAVID,
KOCH SUSAN,
NAY RHONDA
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of nursing management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.925
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1365-2834
pISSN - 0966-0429
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.01038.x
Subject(s) - cronbach's alpha , scale (ratio) , reliability (semiconductor) , psychology , test (biology) , psychometrics , applied psychology , clinical psychology , nursing , medicine , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , biology
edvardsson d ., koch s . & nay r . (2010) Journal of Nursing Management 18, 54–60
Psychometric evaluation of the English language Person‐centred Climate Questionnaire – staff version Aim The present study aimed to evaluate psychometric properties of the English language Person‐centred Climate Questionnaire – staff version (PCQ‐S). Background Person‐centred care emphasizes the individual’s perspective in the care process. However, the concept is subject to some debate and few measurement tools exist. Methods During 2 months in 2007, the Swedish PCQ‐S was translated to English and distributed to a sample of Australian hospital staff ( n = 52). Psychometric evaluation using statistical estimates of validity and reliability were performed. Results The 14‐item questionnaire showed high reliability as Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory for the total scale (0.89), and for the four subscales: 0.87, 0.79, 0.82 and 0.69. Test–retest reliability were evaluated in a subsample of 40 staff and resulted in P ‐values >0.05 between mean scores of the PCQ‐S at test and retest, r ‐values between 0.6 and 0.9, and a two‐way mixed effects model, single measures intra‐class correlations of 0.75 with a confidence interval of 0.58–0.86. Validity of the scale needs further evaluation. Conclusions and implications for nursing management The English PCQ‐S makes possible studies of associations between person‐centredness and different organizational systems, environments, staff characteristics and health and managerial styles. However, scale validity needs further evaluation.