Working Languages
How to Cite
Downloads
Abstract
Objective: Describe the research instrument validation and related factors in master’s theses at Nam Dinh University of Nursing from 2017 to 2022.
Participants and methods: A retrospective study was conducted on all master’s theses in nursing that used at least one quantitative instrument at Nam Dinh University of Nursing from 2017 to 2022.
Results: The average score for the instrument development and validation process was 0.85 ± 0.15. Specifically, the average score for the single-item question development phase was 0.91 ± 0.09; the instrument development phase had an average score of 0.82 ± 0.07, and the instrument evaluation phase scored 0.78 ± 0.34. The average score for the translation and validation process of foreign-language instruments was 1.52 ± 0.49. Specifically, the translation phase from English to Vietnamese scored an average of 0.98 ± 0.55, and the validation phase scored 1.54 ± 0.51. The overall average score for the validation process of the Vietnamese-language instrument was 1.84 ± 0.48. The study indicated a statistically significant relationship between the comprehensive literature review of relevant instruments with the instrument development and foreign-language validation process and the validation process of existing Vietnamese-language instruments (p < 0.05). The study time was statistically significant with the instrument development and evaluation process (p < 0.05), and the use of relevant guiding theories was statistically significant with the validation process of existing tools (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Future studies should strive to follow the process of developing and validating measurements, to improve the integrity and reliability of research results.
Keywords
References
Laake, P., B. Olsen, and H. Benestad. Research methodology in the medical and biological sciences. 1st ed. 2007: Amsterdam: Elsevier, Academic Press.
Beaton, D.E., et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2000. 25(24): p. 3186-91. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
Proctor, E.K., et al. Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health, 2009. 36(1): p. 24-34. doi: 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4.
Wang, W.L., H.L. Lee, and S.J. Fetzer. Challenges and strategies of instrument translation. West J Nurs Res, 2006. 28(3): p. 310-21. doi: 10.1177/0193945905284712.
Boateng, G.O., et al. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in public health, 2018. 6: p. 149.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Sousa, V.D. and W. Rojjanasrirat. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2011. 17(2): p. 268-274. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x.
Chaudoir, S.R., A.G. Dugan, and C.H. Barr. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implementation science, 2013. 8: p. 1-20. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-22.
Proctor, E., et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 2011. 38: p. 65-76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
Schuman, H. The random probe: A technique for evaluating the validity of closed questions. American sociological review, 1966: p. 218-222.
Cook, D.A. and T.J. Beckman. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med, 2006. 119(2): p. 166.e7-16. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 2019 Dec;31(12):1412-1427. doi: 10.1037/pas0000626.
Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L. S., ... & Nosek, B. A. Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biology, 2016, 14(5), e1002456. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., ... & Contestabile, M. Promoting an open research culture. Science, 2015, 348(6242), 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374
Maneesriwongul, W. and J.K. Dixon. Instrument translation process: a methods review. Journal of advanced nursing, 2004. 48(2): p. 175-186. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Nursing Science