Suppr超能文献

评估工作场所暴力风险因素问卷(QAWRF)的结构效度和重测信度:医疗环境中特定工作场所决定因素的三方视角

Construct Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of Questionnaires to Assess Workplace Violence Risk Factors (QAWRF): A Tripartite Perspective of Worksite-Specific Determinants in Healthcare Settings.

作者信息

Mohd Hatta Faizul Haris, Samsudin Ely Zarina, Aimran Nazim, Ismail Zaliha, Sapian Nor Akmar Mohd

机构信息

Department of Public Health Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia.

College of Computing, Informatics, and Mathematics, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

出版信息

Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2024 Feb 29;17:455-471. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S439914. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Among available workplace violence (WPV) interventions, only data-driven, worksite-based, and risk-based approach WPV interventions had moderate evidence for effectiveness in decreasing the risk of WPV. The Questionnaires to Assess Workplace Violence Risk Factors (QAWRF) had been previously developed to determine the level of WPV risk factors in each healthcare setting based on the tripartite perspective of key stakeholders to enable effective WPV interventions. This study aimed to determine the construct validity and test-retest validity of QAWRF.

METHODS

QAWRF, a three-component instrument consisting of QAWRF-Administrators, QAWRF-Workers, and QAWRF-Clients, had previously undergone content validation, face validation, and internal consistency reliability testing. 965 respondents were recruited to examine the construct validity of QAWRF, and a subset of these (n = 90) were retested again at an interval of three weeks to assess its test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed, and fitness indices, average variance extracted, correlation coefficient, composite reliability, and intraclass correlation coefficient were determined.

RESULTS

QAWRF-Administrator, QAWRF-Worker, and QAWRF-Client had acceptable factor loadings (≥0.6), absolute fit (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation > 0.1), incremental fit (Confirmatory Fit Index and Tucker Lewis Index > 0.9), parsimonious fit (Chi-square/degree of freedom < 5), correlation coefficient between construct (≤0.85), discriminant validity index, and construct reliability (≥0.6). CFA supported a four-factor model for QAWRF-Administrator and QAWRF-Worker, and a two-factor model for QAWRF-Client.

CONCLUSION

QAWRF holds good construct validity and test-retest reliability. By using QAWRF, healthcare managers can identify specific WPV risk factors that are perceived by stakeholders as prevalent at a particular workplace, and these findings can contribute towards data-driven, worksite-specific, and targeted WPV interventions in healthcare settings that are expected to be resource-efficient and more effective than general WPV interventions.

摘要

引言

在现有的工作场所暴力(WPV)干预措施中,只有基于数据、工作场所和风险的WPV干预措施有中等证据表明其在降低WPV风险方面有效。先前已开发出工作场所暴力风险因素评估问卷(QAWRF),以基于关键利益相关者的三方视角确定每个医疗环境中WPV风险因素的水平,从而实现有效的WPV干预。本研究旨在确定QAWRF的结构效度和重测效度。

方法

QAWRF是一种由QAWRF-管理人员、QAWRF-工作人员和QAWRF-客户组成的三部分工具,先前已进行了内容效度、表面效度和内部一致性信度测试。招募了965名受访者来检验QAWRF的结构效度,其中一部分(n = 90)在三周后再次进行测试,以评估其重测信度。进行了验证性因素分析(CFA),并确定了拟合指数、平均方差抽取量、相关系数、组合信度和组内相关系数。

结果

QAWRF-管理人员、QAWRF-工作人员和QAWRF-客户具有可接受的因素负荷(≥0.6)、绝对拟合度(近似均方根误差> 0.1)、增量拟合度(验证性拟合指数和塔克·刘易斯指数> 0.9)、简约拟合度(卡方/自由度< 5)、结构之间的相关系数(≤0.85)、判别效度指数和结构信度(≥0.6)。CFA支持QAWRF-管理人员和QAWRF-工作人员的四因素模型,以及QAWRF-客户的两因素模型。

结论

QAWRF具有良好的结构效度和重测信度。通过使用QAWRF,医疗管理人员可以识别利益相关者认为在特定工作场所普遍存在的特定WPV风险因素,并将这些结果用于医疗环境中数据驱动、针对特定工作场所和有针对性的WPV干预措施,预计这些措施将比一般WPV干预措施更节省资源且更有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c842/10933514/beb3ec283252/RMHP-17-455-g0001.jpg

相似文献

9
Development of the Workplace Interpersonal Problems Scale for Care Workers (WIPS) and examination of its reliability and validity.
Heliyon. 2023 Sep 16;9(9):e20156. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20156. eCollection 2023 Sep.
10
Validity and reliability of the Checklist for Habitual Physical Activity for people 75 years and older in Japan.
Psychogeriatrics. 2024 Nov;24(6):1282-1296. doi: 10.1111/psyg.13189. Epub 2024 Sep 9.

本文引用的文献

3
Identifying Predictors of Workplace Violence Against Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review.
Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2022 Oct-Dec;26(4):207-224. doi: 10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_164_21. Epub 2022 Dec 24.
4
Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Evaluate Workplace Violence in Healthcare Settings.
Cureus. 2021 Nov 28;13(11):e19959. doi: 10.7759/cureus.19959. eCollection 2021 Nov.
5
Workplace violence against doctors: Characteristics, risk factors, and mitigation strategies.
J Postgrad Med. 2020 Jul-Sep;66(3):149-154. doi: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_96_20.
6
Examining 3-month test-retest reliability and reliable change using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery.
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2022 Mar-Apr;29(2):146-154. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2020.1722126. Epub 2020 Feb 21.
7
Preliminary risk assessment of workplace violence in hospital emergency departments.
Ann Ig. 2020 Mar-Apr;32(2):99-108. doi: 10.7416/ai.2020.2334.
9
Interventions to prevent aggression against doctors: a systematic review.
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 17;9(9):e028465. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028465.
10
Violence towards Emergency Nurses. The Italian National Survey 2016: A qualitative study.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 May;81:21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.01.017. Epub 2018 Feb 2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验