Jiyoung Kang; Heiyoung Kang; Nanyeon Kim; Mijung Lee; Youjine Kim; Juhyeon Kim; Sujeong Yeo; Yunye Seo; E. Eunyoung Suh

doi:10.7469/kjan.2016.28.2.191

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.28(2) > 1076386

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kang, Kang, Kim, Lee, Kim, Kim, Yeo, Seo, and Suh: Validity and Reliability Test of the Korean Version of the Oncology Patients’ Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2016;28(2):191-201.

Published online: April 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2016.28.2.191

Validity and Reliability Test of the Korean Version of the Oncology Patients’ Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale

Jiyoung Kang¹, Heiyoung Kang², Nanyeon Kim², Mijung Lee², Youjine Kim², Juhyeon Kim², Sujeong Yeo², Yunye Seo³, E. Eunyoung Suh⁴

^¹College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul

^²Department of Nursing, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul

^³Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, Wonju

^⁴College of Nursing · Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Suh, E, Eunyoung College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 103 Jonro-gu, Dehack-ro, Seoul 03080, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8484, Fax: +82-2-740-8484, E-mail: esuh@snu.ac.kr

Received 6 February 201618 April 2016 Accepted 19 April 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this methodological study was to examine the validity and reliability of a translated Korean version of The Oncology Patients’ Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale.

Methods

The translated scale was pilot tested and then administered to 360 patients with cancer. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were utilized to assess the factor structure. Internal consistency reliability was determined using coefficient ⍺.

Results

Two of the 40 items were deleted with a principal component method of exploratory factor analysis because they did not meet the factor-loading criterion. The 38 items were again analyzed and, four factors were validated (KMO=.96, Bartlett x²=10809.81, df=780, p<.001). The four factors accounted for 60.9% of the variance. Factor loadings of the scale on the four subscales ranged from .65 to .91. The scale showed reliable internal consistency with a Cronbach's ⍺, total 38 items (⍺=.96) in four subscales: individualization (18 items, ⍺=.96), proficiency (10, .91), responsiveness (7, .90), and coordination (3, .80).

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrate that the scale has satisfactory construct validity and reliability to measure quality of cancer nursing care from the patient's perspective in Korea.

Keywords: Patient-centered care, Oncology nursing, Quality of health care, Validity and reliability, Measures

REFERENCES

1.Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press;2001.

2.Epstein RM., Street RL Jr. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. NIH Publication: National Cancer Institute;2007. Report No.: 07-6225.

3.Suhonen R., Schmidt LA., Radwin L. Measuring individualized nursing care: assessment of reliability and validity of three scales. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007. 59(1):77–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04282.x.

4.Radwin LE., Farquhar SL., Knowles MN., Virchick BG. Cancer patients'descriptions of their nursing care. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2005. 50(2):162–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03375.x.

5.Lee MA., Yom Y-H. A comparative study of patients'and nurses'perceptions of the quality of nursing services, satisfaction and intent to revisit the hospital: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2007. 44(4):545–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.006.

6.Radwin L., Alster K., Rubin KM. Development and testing of the oncology patients' perceptions of the quality of nursing care scale. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2003. 30(2):283–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1188/03.onf.283-290.

7.Kitson A., Marshall A., Bassett K., Zeitz K. What are the core elements of patient centred care? a narrative review and synthesis of the literature from health policy, medicine and nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013. 69(1):4–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06064.x.

8.Izumi S., Baggs JG., Knafl KA. Quality nursing care for hospitalized patients with advanced illness: concept development. Research in Nursing & Health. 2010. 33(4):299–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20391.

9.Larson PJ., Ferketich SL. Patients' satisfaction with nurses' caring during hospitalization. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1993. 15(6):690–703.

10.Mitchell PH., Heinrich J., Moritz P., Hinshaw AS. Measurement into practice: summary and recommendations. Medical Care. 1997. 35(11):NS124–7.

11.Köberich S., Farin E. A systematic review of instruments measuring patients' perceptions of patient centred nursing care. Nursing Inquiry. 2015. 22(2):106–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nin.12078.

12.Sidani S., Collins L., Harbman P., MacMillan K., Reeves S., Hurlock Chorostecki C, et al. Development of a measure to assess healthcare providers'implementation of patient centered care. Worldviews on Evidence Based Nursing. 2014. 11(4):248–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12047.

13.Radwin L. Oncology patients' perceptions of quality nursing care. Research in Nursing & Health. 2000. 23(3):179–90.

14.Radwin LE., Cabral HJ., Wilkes G. Relationships between patient centered cancer nursing interventions and desired health outcomes in the context of the health care system. Research in Nursing & Health. 2009. 32(1):4–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20302.

15.National Cancer Center. 2013 Cancer registry statistics in Korea. Seoul; Ministry of Health & Welfare, Korea Central Cancer Registry: National Cancer Center;2015.

16.DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc;2003.

17.Comrey AL. Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1988. 56(5):754–61.

18.Kim GS. Structural equation modeling analysis: Amos 18.0. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co;2010.

19.Schmitt TA. Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2011. 29(4):304–21.

20.Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970. 1(3):185–216.

21.Duffy ME. Translating instruments into other languages: basic considerations. Clinical Nurse Specialist. 2006. 20(5):225–6.

22.Lee E., Lim N., Park H., Lee I., Kim J., Bae J, et al. Nursing research and statistical analysis. Paju: Soomoomsa Publishing;2009.

23.Yu J-P. The concept and understanding of structural equation modeling. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co;2012.

24.Kang H. A guide on the use of factor analysis in the assessment of construct validity. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2013. 43(5):587–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.5.587.

25.Tak J. Psychological testing: an understanding of development and evaluation method. 2nd ed. Seoul: Hakjisa;2007.

26.Kang J., Suh EE. Perceptions of quality of patient-centered nursing care among women with breast cancer. Perspectives in Nursing Science. 2015. 12(2):115–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.16952/pns.2015.12.2.115.

27.Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974. 39(1):31–6.

28.Bagozzi RP., Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1988. 16(1):74–94.

29.Fornell C., Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981. 18(1):39–50.

30.Nunnally JC., Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill;1994.

31.Larrabee J., Bolden L. Defining patient-perceived quality of nursing care. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2001. 16(1):34–60.

32.Sofaer S., Firminger K. Patient perceptions of the quality of health services. Annual Reviews of Public Health. 2005. 26:513–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.050503.153958.

33.Williams SA. Quality and care: patients' perceptions. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 1998. 12(6):18–25.

34.Lee T., Kang KH., Ko YK., Cho S-H., Kim EY. Issues and challenges of nurse workforce policy: a critical review and implication. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2014. 20(1):106–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2014.20.1.106.

Table 1.

General Characteristics of the Participants (N=360)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD
Cancer type	Breast cancer	223 (61.9)
Cancer type	Thyroid cancer	137 (38.1)
Age (year) (Range: 25~75)		51.4±9.9
	20~29	18 (5.0)
	30~39	42 (11.7)
	40~49	117 (32.5)
	50~59	114 (31.7)
	60~69	57 (15.8)
	≥70	12 (3.3)
Marital status	Single	13 (3.6)
	Married	315 (87.5)
	Divorced	14 (3.9)
	Others	18 (5.0)
Number of children	0	56 (15.6)
	1	80 (22.2)
	2	175 (48.6)
	≥3	49 (13.6)
Religion	Christian	116 (32.2)
	Catholic	69 (19.2)
	Buddhist	73 (20.3)
	Others (none include)	102 (28.3)
Education	≤Middle school	77 (21.4)
	High school	132 (36.7)
	College	143 (39.7)
	≥Graduate school	8 (2.2)
Perceived economic status	Good	13 (3.6)
	Fair	262 (72.8)
	Poor	31 (8.6)
	Non response	54 (15.0)

Table 2.

Item Analysis and Factor Analysis of the OPPQNCS-K (N=360)

Item The nurses	M±SD	A	B	C	Factor loadings				Com.	^EV (%)
Item The nurses	M±SD	A	B	C	1	2	3	4	Com.	^EV (%)
Individualization 18 items	5.26±0.75			.96						47.9
personalized my care to my particular needs.	5.29±0.93	.73	.96		.96				.74
knew how to help me when things were bothering me.	5.36±0.94	.78	.96		.85				.76
discussed care options with me.	4.90±1.36	.68	.96		.85				.63
encouraged me to actively participate in my care.	5.28±1.02	.79	.96		.82				.74
knew how I was coping.	5.22±0.99	.78	.96		.78				.73
spent time with me when I needed them.	4.86±1.30	.70	.96		.77				.63
knew how I was feeling.	5.06±1.02	.77	.96		.76				.70
helped me get the information I wanted.	5.40±0.88	.67	.96		.70				.56
correctly anticipated problems I might have because of my conditions.	5.18±0.99	.74	.96		.67				.63
made it easy to establish the relationship I wanted with them.	5.15±1.03	.73	.96		.67				.63
tried to help when I was having a difficult time.	5.31±1.02	.74	.96		.60				.64
remembered things about me.	5.32±0.94	.70	.96		.60				.56
knew what I had been through.	5.20±1.06	.70	.96		.60				.56
did what they could to make me comfortable.	5.50±0.80	.72	.96		.56				.65
arranged for the same nurses to care for me regularly.	5.41±0.95	.59	.96		.54				.51
gave me support I needed.	5.56±0.72	.67	.96		.52				.58
knew how to help me in ways that I liked.	5.38±0.82	.71	.96		.50				.61
comforted me when I needed it.	5.35±0.88	.68	.96		.46				.52
Proficiency 10 items	5.64±0.46			.91						6.4
were skillful.	5.74±0.53	.52	.96			.78			.55
knew how to care for someone with my condition.	5.62±0.61	.54	.96			.78			.58
gave me accurate explanations about my care.	5.70±0.56	.52	.96			.74			.54
took time to answer my questions.	5.73±0.54	.56	.96			.73			.55
knew how to help me.	5.66±0.59	.60	.96			.67			.59
knew what they were doing.	5.76±0.53	.56	.96			.65			.57
knew made sure I had what I needed.	5.47±0.73	.64	.96			.57			.55
checked on me often enough.	5.49±0.75	.65	.96			.56			.59
addressed my needs promptly.	5.62±0.69	.59	.96			.46			.48
respected my dignity.	5.59±0.67	.72	.96			.43			.68
Responsiveness 7 items	5.56±0.59			.90						3.7
were kind to me.	5.74±0.56	.65	.96				.77		.67
made me feel like I mattered.	5.32±0.95	.71	.96				.64		.67
were gentle with me.	5.70±0.59	.68	.96				.63		.65
reacted quickly when something important happened.	5.65±0.65	.66	.96				.59		.58
came when I needed them.	5.64±0.64	.60	.96				.55		.56
took my concerns seriously.	5.36±0.99	.76	.96				.53		.69
paid attention to what I said.	5.52±0.78	.69	.96				.52		.63
Coordination 3 items	3.90±1.61			.80						2.9
told me which nurse was primarily responsible for coordinating my care.	3.92±1.88	.55	.96					.83	.81
showed me they cared about my family and friends.	3.78±1.95	.31	.96					.81	.59
told me which nurse was taking over when they were not there.	4.01±1.85	.62	.96					.71	.74
Total 38 items	5.31±0.62			.96						60.9

KMO=.996; Bartlett x²=108099.81;df=780;; p＜.00

A=corrected item-total correlation; B=Cronbach's ⍺ if item deleted; C=Cronbach's ⍺; Com.=communality; EV=explained variance; OPPQNCS-K=Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale; Factor 1=Individualization; Factor 2=Proficiency; Factor 3=Responsiveness; Factor 4=Coordination.

Table 3.

Model Fit Indices for OPPQNCS-K

Variables	x²	df	p	RMSEA
OPPQNCS-K	1,905.31	659	＜.001	.07

Table 4.

Convergent Validity of OPPQNCS-K

Variables	Path	Standardized estimates (β)	SE	CR	p	Average variance extracted	Construct reliability
Quality of nursing care	→ Individualization	.90	.01	8.08	＜.001	.69	.89
	→ Proficiency	.83	.01	10.69	＜.001
	→ Responsiveness	.91	.01	7.51	＜.001
	→ Coordination	.65
Criteria		＞.50		＞1.96		＞.50	＞.70
Result		yes		yes		yes	yes

CR=critical ratio.

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity of OPPQNCS-K

	Individualization	Proficiency	Responsiveness	Coordination
Individualization	.58^†			.52^†
Proficiency	.54^‡	.73^†
Responsiveness	.66^‡	.64^‡	.72^†
Coordination	.27^‡	.12^‡	.18^‡
Criteria	AVE＞Ф²		Criteria

^† Average Variance Extracted (AVE);

^‡ Square of Correlation Coefficient= (r²)=Ф²

TOOLS

Similar articles