Dorn Barry C, Savoia Elena, Testa Marcia A, Stoto Michael A, Marcus Leonard J
Program on Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Harvard School of Public Health, 401 Park Dr., Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Public Health Rep. 2007 May-Jun;122(3):329-38. doi: 10.1177/003335490712200306.
Survey instruments for evaluating public health preparedness have focused on measuring the structure and capacity of local, state, and federal agencies, rather than linkages among structure, process, and outcomes. To focus evaluation on the latter, we evaluated the linkages among individuals, organizations, and systems using the construct of "connectivity" and developed a measurement instrument.
Results from focus groups of emergency preparedness first responders generated 62 items used in the development sample of 187 respondents. Item reduction and factors analyses were conducted to confirm the scale's components.
The 62 items were reduced to 28. Five scales explained 70% of the total variance (number of items, percent variance explained, Cronbach's alpha) including connectivity with the system (8, 45%, 0.94), coworkers (7, 7%, 0.91), organization (7, 12%, 0.93), and perceptions (6, 6%, 0.90). Discriminant validity was found to be consistent with the factor structure.
We developed a Connectivity Measurement Tool for the public health workforce consisting of a 34-item questionnaire found to be a reliable measure of connectivity with preliminary evidence of construct validity.
用于评估公共卫生应急准备情况的调查工具主要侧重于衡量地方、州和联邦机构的结构和能力，而非结构、过程和结果之间的联系。为了将评估重点放在后者上，我们使用“连通性”这一概念对个人、组织和系统之间的联系进行了评估，并开发了一种测量工具。
应急准备一线响应人员焦点小组的结果产生了62个项目，用于187名受访者的开发样本。进行了项目缩减和因素分析以确认量表的组成部分。
62个项目缩减至28个。五个量表解释了总方差的70%（项目数量、解释的方差百分比、克朗巴哈系数），包括与系统的连通性（8个项目，45%，0.94）、同事（7个项目，7%，0.91）、组织（7个项目，12%，0.93）和认知（6个项目，6%，0.90）。发现区分效度与因素结构一致。
我们为公共卫生工作人员开发了一种连通性测量工具，它由一份34个项目的问卷组成，被发现是一种可靠的连通性测量方法，具有结构效度的初步证据。
