Premium
Development and validation of the pressure ulcer management self‐efficacy scale for nurses
Author(s) -
Dellafiore Federica,
Arrigoni Cristina,
Ghizzardi Greta,
Baroni Irene,
Conte Gianluca,
Turrini Francesca,
Castiello Gianluca,
Magon Arianna,
Pittella Francesco,
Caruso Rosario
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of clinical nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1365-2702
pISSN - 0962-1067
DOI - 10.1111/jocn.14875
Subject(s) - checklist , face validity , construct validity , scale (ratio) , exploratory factor analysis , content validity , psychology , reliability (semiconductor) , concurrent validity , psychometrics , clinical psychology , internal consistency , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , cognitive psychology
Background Pressure ulcers (PUs) represent a current issue for healthcare delivery. Nurse self‐efficacy in managing PUs could predict patients’ outcome, being a proxy assessment of their overall competency to managing PUs. However, a valid and reliable scale of this task‐specific self‐efficacy has not yet been developed. Objectives To develop a valid and reliable scale to assess nurses’ self‐efficacy in managing PUs, that is, the pressure ulcer management self‐efficacy scale for nurses (PUM‐SES). Methods This study had a multi‐method and multi‐phase design, where study reporting was supported by the STROBE checklist (File S1). Phase 1 referred to the scale development, consisting in the items’ generation, mainly based on themes emerged from the literature and discussed within a panel of experts. Phase 2 focused on a three‐step validation process: the first step aimed to assess face and content validity of the pool of items previously generated (initial version of the PUM‐SES); the second aimed to assess psychometrics properties through exploratory factorial analysis; the third step assessed construct validity through confirmative factorial analysis, while concurrent validity was evaluated describing the relationships between PUM‐SES and an established general self‐efficacy measurement. Reliability was assessed through the evaluation of stability and internal consistency. Results PUM‐SES showed evidence of face and content validity, adequate construct and concurrent validity, internal consistency and stability. Specifically, PUM‐SES had four domains, labelled as follows: assessment, planning, supervision and decision‐making. These domains were predicted by the same second‐order factor, labelled as PU management self‐efficacy. Conclusion PUM‐SES is a 10‐item scale to measure nurses’ self‐efficacy in PU management. A standardised 0–100 scoring is suggested for computing each domain and the overall scale. PUM‐SES might be used in clinical and educational research. Relevance to clinical practice Optimising nurses’ self‐efficacy in PU management might enhance clinical assessment, determining better outcomes in patients with PUs.