ISSN 1672-9234 CN 11-5289/R
主管:中国科学技术协会 主办:中华护理学会
出版:中华护理杂志社
收录:中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)来源期刊
   中国期刊全文数据库
   中国核心期刊(遴选)数据库
   中文科技期刊数据库

中华护理教育 ›› 2021, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (10): 915-919.doi: 10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2021.10.011

• 继续教育 • 上一篇    下一篇

学习者反思能力提升评价工具的汉化及信效度检验

潘靖菁(),赵霖,彭吉娜,章静意,陈小芳()   

  1. 510630 广州市 南方医科大学第三附属医院(潘靖菁,陈小芳); 514015 广东省梅州市 嘉应医学院(赵霖,彭吉娜,章静意)
  • 收稿日期:2020-11-09 出版日期:2021-10-20 发布日期:2021-10-26
  • 通讯作者: 陈小芳
  • 作者简介:潘靖菁:女,硕士,护师,E-mail: 15626049472@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    2019年度广东省临床教学基地教学改革研究项目(2019JD012);南方医科大学2019年度护理科研专项(青年项目)(Q2019004)

Reliability and validity of the Reflection Evaluation for Learners’ Enhanced Competencies Tool

PAN Jing-jing(),ZHAO Lin,PENG Ji-na,ZHANG Jing-yi,CHEN Xiao-fang()   

  • Received:2020-11-09 Online:2021-10-20 Published:2021-10-26
  • Contact: Xiao-fang CHEN

摘要:

目的 形成中文版学习者反思能力提升评价工具并进行信效度检验。方法 对英文版学习者反思能力提升评价工具进行翻译、回译和文化调试;选取6名专家进行3轮函询并评价工具的内容效度;选取50篇以“护理职业角色转变”为主题的新护士的反思日记,由3名评价者用中文版学习者反思能力提升评价工具对这些反思日记进行评价,用评价数据检验工具的鉴别度、同质性和信度。结果 中文版学习者反思能力提升评价工具所有条目的高低分组得分差异均有统计学意义(t=4.210~9.121,P<0.001),共同性值为0.318~0.718,因素负荷量为0.564~0.847;各条目内容效度系数为0.83~1;工具的Cronbach’s α系数为0.833,重测信度为0.618(P<0.01),3名评价者组内相关系数为0.681(P<0.05)。结论 中文版学习者反思能力提升评价工具具有较好鉴别度、同质性和信效度,能有效测量新护士的反思能力,可为临床护理者反思培训效果评价和个性化反馈提供依据。

关键词: 反思, 评价工具, 汉化, 信度, 效度

Abstract:

Objective To translate the Reflection Evaluation for Learners’ Enhanced Competencies Tool(REFLECT) into Chinese and to test its reliability and validity. Methods The REFLECT was translated forward and backward after which cultural adaptation was completed. Then the Chinese version(C-REFLECT)was reviewed by six experts with relevant expertise to test its content validity. Fifty diaries from the new graduate nurses were evaluated by three individuals using the C-REFLECT to verify its reliability. Results Statistical significance was shown between the high score group and the low score group evaluated by the C-REFLECT(t=4.210~9.121,P<0.001). The commonality scores ranged from 0.318 to 0.718 while factor loadings were from 0.564 to 0.847. Content validity coefficients were from 0.83 to 1. Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.833 and test-retest reliability was 0.618(P<0.01).Interrater reliability among three individuals was 0.681(P<0.05). Conclusion The C-REFLECT was valid and reliable as an analytical tool for reflective diary evaluation. It can be used to assess the reflection ability of new nurses. Besides,it can provide reference for reflection training and individual feedbacks.

Key words: Reflection, Evaluation tool, Convert into Chinese, Reliability, Validity