Cargando…

Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration

BACKGROUND: Quantitative and qualitative procedures are necessary components of instrument development and assessment. However, validation studies conventionally emphasise quantitative assessments while neglecting qualitative procedures. Applying both methods in a mixed methods design provides addit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud, Jean Anthony, Geese, Franziska, Uhlmann, Katja, Blasimann, Angela, Wagner, Felicitas L., Neubauer, Florian B., Huwendiek, Sören, Hahn, Sabine, Schmitt, Kai-Uwe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36698097
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09040-3
_version_ 1784878027976474624
author Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud, Jean Anthony
Geese, Franziska
Uhlmann, Katja
Blasimann, Angela
Wagner, Felicitas L.
Neubauer, Florian B.
Huwendiek, Sören
Hahn, Sabine
Schmitt, Kai-Uwe
author_facet Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud, Jean Anthony
Geese, Franziska
Uhlmann, Katja
Blasimann, Angela
Wagner, Felicitas L.
Neubauer, Florian B.
Huwendiek, Sören
Hahn, Sabine
Schmitt, Kai-Uwe
author_sort Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud, Jean Anthony
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Quantitative and qualitative procedures are necessary components of instrument development and assessment. However, validation studies conventionally emphasise quantitative assessments while neglecting qualitative procedures. Applying both methods in a mixed methods design provides additional insights into instrument quality and more rigorous validity evidence. Drawing from an extensive review of the methodological and applied validation literature on mixed methods, we showcase our use of mixed methods for validation which applied the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility on data collected with an instrument measuring interprofessional collaboration in the context of Swiss healthcare, named the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration. METHODS: We employ a convergent parallel mixed methods design to analyse quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data. Data were collected from staff, supervisors, and patients of a university hospital and regional hospitals in the German and Italian speaking regions of Switzerland. We compare quantitative ratings and qualitative comments to evaluate the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility, which together form part of an instrument’s construct validity evidence. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 435 staff, 133 supervisors, and 189 patients were collected. Analysis of congruence potentially provides explanations why respondents’ comments are off topic. Convergence between quantitative ratings and qualitative comments can be interpreted as an indication of convergent validity. Credibility provides a summary evaluation of instrument quality. These quality criteria provide evidence that questions were understood as intended, provide construct validity, and also point to potential item quality issues. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods provide alternative means of collecting construct validity evidence. Our suggested procedures can be easily applied on empirical data and allow the congruence, convergence, and credibility of questionnaire items to be evaluated. The described procedures provide an efficient means of enhancing the rigor of an instrument and can be used alone or in conjunction with traditional quantitative psychometric approaches.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9875772
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98757722023-01-25 Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud, Jean Anthony Geese, Franziska Uhlmann, Katja Blasimann, Angela Wagner, Felicitas L. Neubauer, Florian B. Huwendiek, Sören Hahn, Sabine Schmitt, Kai-Uwe BMC Health Serv Res Research BACKGROUND: Quantitative and qualitative procedures are necessary components of instrument development and assessment. However, validation studies conventionally emphasise quantitative assessments while neglecting qualitative procedures. Applying both methods in a mixed methods design provides additional insights into instrument quality and more rigorous validity evidence. Drawing from an extensive review of the methodological and applied validation literature on mixed methods, we showcase our use of mixed methods for validation which applied the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility on data collected with an instrument measuring interprofessional collaboration in the context of Swiss healthcare, named the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration. METHODS: We employ a convergent parallel mixed methods design to analyse quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data. Data were collected from staff, supervisors, and patients of a university hospital and regional hospitals in the German and Italian speaking regions of Switzerland. We compare quantitative ratings and qualitative comments to evaluate the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility, which together form part of an instrument’s construct validity evidence. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 435 staff, 133 supervisors, and 189 patients were collected. Analysis of congruence potentially provides explanations why respondents’ comments are off topic. Convergence between quantitative ratings and qualitative comments can be interpreted as an indication of convergent validity. Credibility provides a summary evaluation of instrument quality. These quality criteria provide evidence that questions were understood as intended, provide construct validity, and also point to potential item quality issues. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods provide alternative means of collecting construct validity evidence. Our suggested procedures can be easily applied on empirical data and allow the congruence, convergence, and credibility of questionnaire items to be evaluated. The described procedures provide an efficient means of enhancing the rigor of an instrument and can be used alone or in conjunction with traditional quantitative psychometric approaches. BioMed Central 2023-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9875772/ /pubmed/36698097 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09040-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud, Jean Anthony
Geese, Franziska
Uhlmann, Katja
Blasimann, Angela
Wagner, Felicitas L.
Neubauer, Florian B.
Huwendiek, Sören
Hahn, Sabine
Schmitt, Kai-Uwe
Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration
title Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration
title_full Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration
title_fullStr Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration
title_full_unstemmed Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration
title_short Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration
title_sort mixed methods instrument validation: evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the swiss instrument for evaluating interprofessional collaboration
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36698097
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09040-3
work_keys_str_mv AT grandguillaumeperrenoudjeananthony mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT geesefranziska mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT uhlmannkatja mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT blasimannangela mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT wagnerfelicitasl mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT neubauerflorianb mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT huwendieksoren mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT hahnsabine mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration
AT schmittkaiuwe mixedmethodsinstrumentvalidationevaluationproceduresforpractitionersdevelopedfromthevalidationoftheswissinstrumentforevaluatinginterprofessionalcollaboration