Cargando…
Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10
OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence that patients can provide feedback on the safety of their care. The 44-item Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) was developed for this purpose. While valid and reliable, the length of this questionnaire makes it potentially challenging for routine use. Our study ai...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31784438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031355 |
_version_ | 1783481770148102144 |
---|---|
author | Louch, Gemma Reynolds, Caroline Moore, Sally Marsh, Claire Heyhoe, Jane Albutt, Abigail Lawton, Rebecca |
author_facet | Louch, Gemma Reynolds, Caroline Moore, Sally Marsh, Claire Heyhoe, Jane Albutt, Abigail Lawton, Rebecca |
author_sort | Louch, Gemma |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence that patients can provide feedback on the safety of their care. The 44-item Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) was developed for this purpose. While valid and reliable, the length of this questionnaire makes it potentially challenging for routine use. Our study aimed to produce revised, shortened versions of PMOS (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10), which retained the psychometric properties of the longer version. PARTICIPANTS: To produce a shortened diagnostic measure, we analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and examined the reliability of the revised measure (PMOS-30) in a sample of 751 patients. To produce a brief standalone measure, we again analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and tested the reliability and validity of the brief standalone measure (PMOS-10) in a sample of 165 patients. METHODS: The process of shortening the questionnaire involved a combination of secondary data analysis (eg, Standard Deviation and inter-item correlations) and a consensus group exercise to produce PMOS-30 and examine face validity. Analysis of PMOS-30 data examined reliability (eg, Cronbach’s alpha). Further secondary data analysis (ie, corrected item-total correlations) produced PMOS-10, and primary data collection assessed its reliability and validity (eg, Cronbach’s alpha, analysis of variance). RESULTS: Fourteen items were removed to produce PMOS-30 and the percentage of negatively worded items was reduced from 57% to 33%. PMOS-30 demonstrated good internal reliability (α=0.89). The 10 items with the highest corrected item-total correlations across both PMOS-44 and PMOS-30 composed PMOS-10. PMOS-10 had good internal reliability (α=0.79), demonstrated convergent validity; however, discriminant validity was not established. CONCLUSIONS: Two revised, shortened versions of the original PMOS-44 (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10) were produced to capture patient feedback about safety in hospital. The measures demonstrated good reliability and validity, and preserved the psychometric properties of the original measure. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6924707 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69247072020-01-02 Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 Louch, Gemma Reynolds, Caroline Moore, Sally Marsh, Claire Heyhoe, Jane Albutt, Abigail Lawton, Rebecca BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence that patients can provide feedback on the safety of their care. The 44-item Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) was developed for this purpose. While valid and reliable, the length of this questionnaire makes it potentially challenging for routine use. Our study aimed to produce revised, shortened versions of PMOS (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10), which retained the psychometric properties of the longer version. PARTICIPANTS: To produce a shortened diagnostic measure, we analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and examined the reliability of the revised measure (PMOS-30) in a sample of 751 patients. To produce a brief standalone measure, we again analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and tested the reliability and validity of the brief standalone measure (PMOS-10) in a sample of 165 patients. METHODS: The process of shortening the questionnaire involved a combination of secondary data analysis (eg, Standard Deviation and inter-item correlations) and a consensus group exercise to produce PMOS-30 and examine face validity. Analysis of PMOS-30 data examined reliability (eg, Cronbach’s alpha). Further secondary data analysis (ie, corrected item-total correlations) produced PMOS-10, and primary data collection assessed its reliability and validity (eg, Cronbach’s alpha, analysis of variance). RESULTS: Fourteen items were removed to produce PMOS-30 and the percentage of negatively worded items was reduced from 57% to 33%. PMOS-30 demonstrated good internal reliability (α=0.89). The 10 items with the highest corrected item-total correlations across both PMOS-44 and PMOS-30 composed PMOS-10. PMOS-10 had good internal reliability (α=0.79), demonstrated convergent validity; however, discriminant validity was not established. CONCLUSIONS: Two revised, shortened versions of the original PMOS-44 (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10) were produced to capture patient feedback about safety in hospital. The measures demonstrated good reliability and validity, and preserved the psychometric properties of the original measure. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6924707/ /pubmed/31784438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031355 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Health Services Research Louch, Gemma Reynolds, Caroline Moore, Sally Marsh, Claire Heyhoe, Jane Albutt, Abigail Lawton, Rebecca Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 |
title | Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 |
title_full | Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 |
title_fullStr | Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 |
title_short | Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 |
title_sort | validation of revised patient measures of safety: pmos-30 and pmos-10 |
topic | Health Services Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31784438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031355 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT louchgemma validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10 AT reynoldscaroline validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10 AT mooresally validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10 AT marshclaire validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10 AT heyhoejane validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10 AT albuttabigail validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10 AT lawtonrebecca validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10 |