Cargando…

Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’

Background and aim: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’ (R4C) is a newly developed instrument, including four domains (D1–D4), to assess clinical practitioners' and students' clinical reasoning with a focus on clients' behaviour change in a physiotherapy context. To establish its use in education an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elvén, Maria, Hochwälder, Jacek, Dean, Elizabeth, Hällman, Olle, Söderlund, Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AIMS Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6141557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30280115
http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2018.3.235
_version_ 1783355722169319424
author Elvén, Maria
Hochwälder, Jacek
Dean, Elizabeth
Hällman, Olle
Söderlund, Anne
author_facet Elvén, Maria
Hochwälder, Jacek
Dean, Elizabeth
Hällman, Olle
Söderlund, Anne
author_sort Elvén, Maria
collection PubMed
description Background and aim: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’ (R4C) is a newly developed instrument, including four domains (D1–D4), to assess clinical practitioners' and students' clinical reasoning with a focus on clients' behaviour change in a physiotherapy context. To establish its use in education and research, its psychometric properties needed to be evaluated. The aim of the study was to generate criterion scores and evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a web-based version of the R4C instrument. Methods: Fourteen physiotherapy experts and 39 final-year physiotherapy students completed the R4C instrument and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT). Twelve experts and 17 students completed the R4C instrument on a second occasion. The R4C instrument was evaluated with regard to: internal consistency (five subscales of D1); test-retest reliability (D1–D4); inter-rater reliability (D2–D4); and construct validity in terms of convergent validity (D1.4, D2, D4). Criterion scores were generated based on the experts' responses to identify the scores of qualified practitioners' clinical reasoning abilities. Results: For the expert and student samples, the analyses demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α range: 0.67–0.91), satisfactory test-retest reliability (ICC range: 0.46–0.94) except for D3 for the experts and D4 for the students. The inter-rater reliability demonstrated excellent agreement within the expert group (ICC range: 0.94–1.0). The correlations between the R4C instrument and PABS-PT (r range: 0.06–0.76) supported acceptable construct validity. Conclusions: The web-based R4C instrument shows satisfactory psychometric properties and could be useful in education and research. The use of the instrument may contribute to a deeper understanding of physiotherapists' and students' clinical reasoning, valuable for curriculum development and improvements of competencies in clinical reasoning related to clients' behavioural change.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6141557
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher AIMS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61415572018-10-02 Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’ Elvén, Maria Hochwälder, Jacek Dean, Elizabeth Hällman, Olle Söderlund, Anne AIMS Public Health Research Article Background and aim: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’ (R4C) is a newly developed instrument, including four domains (D1–D4), to assess clinical practitioners' and students' clinical reasoning with a focus on clients' behaviour change in a physiotherapy context. To establish its use in education and research, its psychometric properties needed to be evaluated. The aim of the study was to generate criterion scores and evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a web-based version of the R4C instrument. Methods: Fourteen physiotherapy experts and 39 final-year physiotherapy students completed the R4C instrument and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT). Twelve experts and 17 students completed the R4C instrument on a second occasion. The R4C instrument was evaluated with regard to: internal consistency (five subscales of D1); test-retest reliability (D1–D4); inter-rater reliability (D2–D4); and construct validity in terms of convergent validity (D1.4, D2, D4). Criterion scores were generated based on the experts' responses to identify the scores of qualified practitioners' clinical reasoning abilities. Results: For the expert and student samples, the analyses demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α range: 0.67–0.91), satisfactory test-retest reliability (ICC range: 0.46–0.94) except for D3 for the experts and D4 for the students. The inter-rater reliability demonstrated excellent agreement within the expert group (ICC range: 0.94–1.0). The correlations between the R4C instrument and PABS-PT (r range: 0.06–0.76) supported acceptable construct validity. Conclusions: The web-based R4C instrument shows satisfactory psychometric properties and could be useful in education and research. The use of the instrument may contribute to a deeper understanding of physiotherapists' and students' clinical reasoning, valuable for curriculum development and improvements of competencies in clinical reasoning related to clients' behavioural change. AIMS Press 2018-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6141557/ /pubmed/30280115 http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2018.3.235 Text en © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
spellingShingle Research Article
Elvén, Maria
Hochwälder, Jacek
Dean, Elizabeth
Hällman, Olle
Söderlund, Anne
Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’
title Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’
title_full Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’
title_fullStr Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’
title_full_unstemmed Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’
title_short Criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘Reasoning 4 Change’
title_sort criterion scores, construct validity and reliability of a web-based instrument to assess physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on behaviour change: ‘reasoning 4 change’
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6141557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30280115
http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2018.3.235
work_keys_str_mv AT elvenmaria criterionscoresconstructvalidityandreliabilityofawebbasedinstrumenttoassessphysiotherapistsclinicalreasoningfocusedonbehaviourchangereasoning4change
AT hochwalderjacek criterionscoresconstructvalidityandreliabilityofawebbasedinstrumenttoassessphysiotherapistsclinicalreasoningfocusedonbehaviourchangereasoning4change
AT deanelizabeth criterionscoresconstructvalidityandreliabilityofawebbasedinstrumenttoassessphysiotherapistsclinicalreasoningfocusedonbehaviourchangereasoning4change
AT hallmanolle criterionscoresconstructvalidityandreliabilityofawebbasedinstrumenttoassessphysiotherapistsclinicalreasoningfocusedonbehaviourchangereasoning4change
AT soderlundanne criterionscoresconstructvalidityandreliabilityofawebbasedinstrumenttoassessphysiotherapistsclinicalreasoningfocusedonbehaviourchangereasoning4change