神经系统评估能力量表的汉化及在神经科护士中的信效度检验

doi:10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2023.03.014

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的汉化神经系统评估能力量表（Neurological Assessment Competency Scale，NACS）并在神经科护士群体中检验其信效度。方法对原始量表进行汉化及跨文化调试，并选取30名神经科护士进行预调查。2021年8月—12月，采取便利抽样法选取合肥市三级甲等医院神经内外科250名护士作为研究对象，使用中文版NACS进行调查。2周后采用便利抽样法从中选取50名护士进行再次测量；邀请10名专家对中文版量表的内容效度进行评定。并对量表的内部一致性、结构效度、内容效度进行检验。结果探索性因子分析共提取了7项公共因子，33个条目，累计贡献率为86.08%；中文版NACS的S-CVI值为0.918，各条目I-CVI值为0.811~1.000；总量表的Cronbach’s α系数为0.926；重测信度为0.908。结论中文版神经系统评估能力量表的信度、效度良好，可用于评估神经科临床护士的神经系统评估能力。

关键词: 护士, 护理评估, 问卷调查, 神经系统评估能力, 信度, 效度

Abstract:

Objective To translate and test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Neurological Assessment Competency Scale（NACS） among neurology nurses. Methods The original scale was translated into Chinese and adjusted culturally. Afterward，30 neurology nurses were selected for pre experiment. From August to December 2021，250 nurses from the department of neurology and surgery in a grade Ⅲ，class A hospital in Hefei were selected as the participants through convenience sampling to validate the Chinese version of NACS. After two weeks，50 of the participated nurses were recruited again for measurement of the second time. Meanwhile，ten experts were invited to evaluate the content validity of the scale. The reliability and validity were evaluated from internal consistency，construct validity，and content validity. Results After exploratory factor analysis，the maximum variance orthogonal rotation method extracted seven common factors，33 items，and the cumulative contribution rate was 86.08%. The S-CVI value of the Chinese version of NACS was 0.918，and the I-CVI value of each entry was 0.811~1.000. The Cronbach’s α of the scale was 0.926. The retest reliability was 0.908. Conclusion The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Neurological Assessment Competency Scale are satisfied，which can be used to assess the neurological assessment capacity of clinical front-line neurological nurses.

Key words: Nurses, Nursing Assessment, Questionnaires, Sinicization of neurological assessment ability, Reliability, Validity

王雪琪, 荆晓雷, 徐昊, 庄红霞, 李娟, 刘贤清. 神经系统评估能力量表的汉化及在神经科护士中的信效度检验[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(3): 323-327.

WANG Xueqi, JING Xiaolei, XU Hao, ZHUANG Hongxia, LI Juan, LIU Xianqing. Translation and validation of Neurological Assessment Competency Scale in neurology nurses[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing Education, 2023, 20(3): 323-327.

图/表 1

参考文献 10

[1]	Chan MF, Mattar I, Taylor BJ. Investigating factors that have an impact on nurses’ performance of patients’ conscious level assessment:a systematic review[J]. J Nurs Manag, 2013, 21(1):31-46. doi: 10.1111/jonm.2013.21.issue-1
[2]	Kirschen MP, Lourie K, Snyder M, et al. Routine neurological assessments by nurses in the pediatric intensive care unit[J]. Crit Care Nurse, 2019, 39(3):20-32. doi: 10.4037/ccn2019198 pmid: 31154328
[3]	Ross AJ, Reedy GB, Roots A, et al. Evaluating multisite multiprofessional simulation training for a hyperacute stroke service using the Behaviour Change Wheel[J]. BMC Med Educ, 2015, 15:143. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0423-1 pmid: 26330134
[4]	罗银秀, 周玥, 黄叶莉. 专科护士核心能力培养现状及对培养神经疾病专科护士核心能力的启示[J]. 护理研究, 2016, 30(30):3722-3725.
	Luo YX, Zhou Y, Huang YL. Status quo of core competence cultivation of nurses specialist and its implications for core competence cultivation of nurses specialist in neurological diseases[J]. Chin Nurs Res, 2016, 30(30):3722-3725.
[5]	Brunker C, Harris R. How accurate is the AVPU scale in detecting neurological impairment when used by general ward nurses? An evaluation study using simulation and a questionnaire[J]. Intensive Crit Care Nurs, 2015, 31(2):69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2014.11.003
[6]	Bae KS, Roh YS. Training needs analysis of Korean nurses’ neurological assessment competency[J]. Nurs Health Sci, 2020, 22(1):99-107. doi: 10.1111/nhs.v22.1
[7]	Eisinga R, Grotenhuis MT, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale:Pearson,Cronbach,or Spearman-Brown?[J]. Int J Public Health, 2013, 58(4):637-642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3 pmid: 23089674
[8]	Shrestha N. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis[J]. Am J Appl Math Stat, 2021, 9(1):4-11. doi: 10.12691/ajams-9-1-2
[9]	张晨, 周云仙. 我国护理测量工具文献中内容效度指数应用误区分析[J]. 护理学杂志, 2020, 35(4):86-88,92.
	Zhang C, Zhou YX. Analysis on errors regarding content validity index used in evaluation of measurement tools in Chinese nursing literature[J]. J Nurs Sci, 2020, 35(4):86-88,92.
[10]	Sharshar T, Citerio G, Andrews PJ, et al. Neurological examination of critically ill patients:a pragmatic approach. Report of an ESICM expert panel[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2014, 40(4):484-495. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3214-y pmid: 24522878

[1]	吴炜炜, 潘燕鸿, 李海森, 江琪. 护理本科生反思洞察力与共情能力的相关性研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(3): 289-293.
[2]	苏涵, 朱雪梅, 崔岩, 杜欣, 王彩丽, 陈俊恒. 情绪智力在护理本科生自悯与人文关怀能力间的中介作用[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(3): 294-297.
[3]	吴捷, 吴安琪, 李梦瑶, 章雅青, 张媛媛. 护理管理者对新入职护士护理能力期待水平的潜在剖面分析[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(3): 317-322.
[4]	李雪, 赵佳, 贾冠华, 张致琴, 张全英, 武勇成, 刘瑞. 自我价值感在临床护士情绪智力与工作投入间的中介作用[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(3): 328-332.
[5]	阮晓芬, 冯燕, 陈洁, 吕碧芳, 俞小玲, 韩晓旭, 姚梅琪. 疼痛管理高仿真情境模拟综合培训方案的设计与应用[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(2): 158-163.
[6]	张静, 石美霞, 陈斌, 李甜. 患者隐私保护能力量表的汉化及在护理实习生中的信效度检验[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(2): 182-186.
[7]	陈利芬, 黎锦燕, 杨玉红, 周雪梅, 王海英. 广东省基层护士PICC维护的培训与成效[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(2): 194-198.
[8]	黄倩, 徐慧萍, 刘延锦, 张艳, 王彦艳, 郭园丽, 蔡立柏, 郭丽娜, 李慧景. 社区老年人肌少症防控知信行量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(2): 205-209.
[9]	陆悦, 尚少梅, 江华, 魏征新, 李明子, 段丽萍. 我国高级执业护师方向护理硕士专业学位研究生教育的底层逻辑探索[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(2): 245-247.
[10]	陈俊庆, 叶贤, 徐红贞. 美国儿科开业护士的发展现状及启示[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(2): 248-252.
[11]	唐佳迎, 邵青梅, 郭芝廷, 任思琪, 黄晓霞. 快速循环刻意练习在护士专业技能培训中的应用进展及启示[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(2): 253-256.
[12]	郭金玉,穆小楠,孙红,孙玉梅,王泠. 新入职护士培训效果评价的研究进展[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(1): 119-122.
[13]	胡晋平,刘君,陈巍,王琳琳,张婷,李思齐,刘征. 体验式学习圈在眼科专科护士培训中的应用[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(1): 73-75.
[14]	贾晶晶,蔡英杰,曹胜男,黄楚涵,史铁英. 护士对肿瘤心脏病学相关护理知识与态度的调查研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(1): 76-81.
[15]	许力升,陈虹秀,王钧,何春霞,刘清泉,胡秀英. 我国31个省份老年科护士在职培训现状及需求调查研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2022, 19(9): 786-791.