Norman I J, Redfern S J
Department of Nursing Studies, King's College London, U.K.
Int J Nurs Stud. 1996 Dec;33(6):660-8. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7489(96)00028-4.
This paper is concerned with validity of Monitor and Senior Monitor. The study carried out, which was funded by the Department of Health, attempted to establish the validity of the instruments through a multiple triangulation research design. Monitor and Senior Monitor were compared to another instrument, Qualpacs, and also to other methods that focused on quality of nursing care--observation of patients' activities and interactions with nurses, and interviews with patients and nurses on their perceptions of quality. The results did not reveal a clear picture. Convergent validity was relatively strong for Senior Monitor and the Monitor DG3 schedule, but not the DG1, DG2 and DG4 schedules, when compared to Qualpacs. The comparison with observation of nurse-patient activities and interactions supported Monitor rather more than Senior Monitor, particularly with respect to frequency of omitted activities. Both instruments showed considerable construct validity in that congruence emerged between their items and the views of patients and nurses on what constitutes quality.
本文关注的是《监测表》和《高级监测表》的效度。这项由卫生部资助开展的研究,试图通过多重三角互证研究设计来确定这些工具的效度。将《监测表》和《高级监测表》与另一种工具《优质护理评估量表》(Qualpacs)进行比较,同时也与其他关注护理质量的方法进行比较,这些方法包括观察患者的活动以及患者与护士之间的互动,还有就患者和护士对护理质量的看法进行访谈。研究结果并不清晰。与《优质护理评估量表》相比,《高级监测表》和《监测表》DG3版本的聚合效度相对较强,但DG1、DG2和DG4版本并非如此。与对护患活动及互动的观察结果相比,《监测表》比《高级监测表》得到的支持更多,尤其是在遗漏活动的频率方面。这两种工具都显示出了相当程度的结构效度,因为它们的项目与患者和护士对何为护理质量的看法之间呈现出了一致性。