Cargando…
Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review
BACKGROUND: The current state of evidence regarding measures that assess evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, behaviours) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the psychometric properti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7254762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32514242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00436-8 |
_version_ | 1783539605867331584 |
---|---|
author | Belita, Emily Squires, Janet E. Yost, Jennifer Ganann, Rebecca Burnett, Trish Dobbins, Maureen |
author_facet | Belita, Emily Squires, Janet E. Yost, Jennifer Ganann, Rebecca Burnett, Trish Dobbins, Maureen |
author_sort | Belita, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The current state of evidence regarding measures that assess evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, behaviours) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the psychometric properties and general characteristics of EIDM competence attribute measures in nursing. METHODS: The search strategy included online databases, hand searches, grey literature, and content experts. To align with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews, psychometric outcome data (i.e., acceptability, reliability, validity) were extracted in duplicate, while all remaining data (i.e., study and measure characteristics) were extracted by one team member and checked by a second member for accuracy. Acceptability data was defined as measure completion time and overall rate of missing data. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing was used as the guiding framework to define reliability, and validity evidence, identified as a unified concept comprised of four validity sources: content, response process, internal structure and relationships to other variables. A narrative synthesis of measure and study characteristics, and psychometric outcomes is presented across measures and settings. RESULTS: A total of 5883 citations were screened with 103 studies and 35 unique measures included in the review. Measures were used or tested in acute care (n = 31 measures), public health (n = 4 measures), home health (n = 4 measures), and long-term care (n = 1 measure). Half of the measures assessed a single competence attribute (n = 19; 54.3%). Three measures (9%) assessed four competence attributes of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs and behaviours. Regarding acceptability, overall missing data ranged from 1.6–25.6% across 11 measures and completion times ranged from 5 to 25 min (n = 4 measures). Internal consistency reliability was commonly reported (21 measures), with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.45–0.98. Two measures reported four sources of validity evidence, and over half (n = 19; 54%) reported one source of validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights a gap in the testing and use of competence attribute measures related to evidence-informed decision making in community-based and long-term care settings. Further development of measures is needed conceptually and psychometrically, as most measures assess only a single competence attribute, and lack assessment and evidence of reliability and sources of established validity evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42018088754. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7254762 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72547622020-06-07 Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review Belita, Emily Squires, Janet E. Yost, Jennifer Ganann, Rebecca Burnett, Trish Dobbins, Maureen BMC Nurs Research Article BACKGROUND: The current state of evidence regarding measures that assess evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, behaviours) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the psychometric properties and general characteristics of EIDM competence attribute measures in nursing. METHODS: The search strategy included online databases, hand searches, grey literature, and content experts. To align with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews, psychometric outcome data (i.e., acceptability, reliability, validity) were extracted in duplicate, while all remaining data (i.e., study and measure characteristics) were extracted by one team member and checked by a second member for accuracy. Acceptability data was defined as measure completion time and overall rate of missing data. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing was used as the guiding framework to define reliability, and validity evidence, identified as a unified concept comprised of four validity sources: content, response process, internal structure and relationships to other variables. A narrative synthesis of measure and study characteristics, and psychometric outcomes is presented across measures and settings. RESULTS: A total of 5883 citations were screened with 103 studies and 35 unique measures included in the review. Measures were used or tested in acute care (n = 31 measures), public health (n = 4 measures), home health (n = 4 measures), and long-term care (n = 1 measure). Half of the measures assessed a single competence attribute (n = 19; 54.3%). Three measures (9%) assessed four competence attributes of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs and behaviours. Regarding acceptability, overall missing data ranged from 1.6–25.6% across 11 measures and completion times ranged from 5 to 25 min (n = 4 measures). Internal consistency reliability was commonly reported (21 measures), with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.45–0.98. Two measures reported four sources of validity evidence, and over half (n = 19; 54%) reported one source of validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights a gap in the testing and use of competence attribute measures related to evidence-informed decision making in community-based and long-term care settings. Further development of measures is needed conceptually and psychometrically, as most measures assess only a single competence attribute, and lack assessment and evidence of reliability and sources of established validity evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42018088754. BioMed Central 2020-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7254762/ /pubmed/32514242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00436-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Belita, Emily Squires, Janet E. Yost, Jennifer Ganann, Rebecca Burnett, Trish Dobbins, Maureen Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review |
title | Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review |
title_full | Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review |
title_fullStr | Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review |
title_short | Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review |
title_sort | measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7254762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32514242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00436-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT belitaemily measuresofevidenceinformeddecisionmakingcompetenceattributesapsychometricsystematicreview AT squiresjanete measuresofevidenceinformeddecisionmakingcompetenceattributesapsychometricsystematicreview AT yostjennifer measuresofevidenceinformeddecisionmakingcompetenceattributesapsychometricsystematicreview AT ganannrebecca measuresofevidenceinformeddecisionmakingcompetenceattributesapsychometricsystematicreview AT burnetttrish measuresofevidenceinformeddecisionmakingcompetenceattributesapsychometricsystematicreview AT dobbinsmaureen measuresofevidenceinformeddecisionmakingcompetenceattributesapsychometricsystematicreview |