ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of Linguistic validation of the Alberta Context Tool and two measures of research use, for German residential long term care.Download the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3WZ5G

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Nursing, Faculty of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Health Systems

Linguistic validation of the Alberta Context Tool and two measures of research use, for German residential long term care. Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Hoben, M.
Bär, M.
Mahler, C.
Berger, S.
Squires, J.
Estabrooks, C. A.
Kruse, A.
Behrens, J.
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
cognitive debriefing
research utilization
organizational context
translation
Alberta context tool
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Background To study the association between organizational context and research utilization in German residential long term care (LTC), we translated three Canadian assessment instruments: the Alberta Context Tool (ACT), Estabrooks’ Kinds of Research Utilization (RU) items and the Conceptual Research Utilization Scale. Target groups for the tools were health care aides (HCAs), registered nurses (RNs), allied health professionals (AHPs), clinical specialists and care managers. Through a cognitive debriefing process, we assessed response processes validity–an initial stage of validity, necessary before more advanced validity assessment. Methods We included 39 participants (16 HCAs, 5 RNs, 7 AHPs, 5 specialists and 6 managers) from five residential LTC facilities. We created lists of questionnaire items containing problematic items plus items randomly selected from the pool of remaining items. After participants completed the questionnaires, we conducted individual semi-structured cognitive interviews using verbal probing. We asked participants to reflect on their answers for list items in detail. Participants’ answers were compared to concept maps defining the instrument concepts in detail. If at least two participants gave answers not matching concept map definitions, items were revised and re-tested with new target group participants. Results Cognitive debriefings started with HCAs. Based on the first round, we modified 4 of 58 ACT items, 1 ACT item stem and all 8 items of the RU tools. All items were understood by participants after another two rounds. We included revised HCA ACT items in the questionnaires for the other provider groups. In the RU tools for the other provider groups, we used different wording than the HCA version, as was done in the original English instruments. Only one cognitive debriefing round was needed with each of the other provider groups. Conclusion Cognitive debriefing is essential to detect and respond to problematic instrument items, particularly when translating instruments for heterogeneous, less well educated provider groups such as HCAs. Cognitive debriefing is an important step in research tool development and a vital component of establishing response process validity evidence. Publishing cognitive debriefing results helps researchers to determine potentially critical elements of the translated tools and assists with interpreting scores.
Date created
2014
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3WZ5G
License information
This is an Open Access article distributed...
Rights
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 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.
Citation for previous publication
Hoben, M., Bär, M., Mahler, C., Berger, S., Squires, J., Estabrooks, C., Kruse, A., & Behrens, J. (2014). Linguistic validation of the Alberta Context Tool and two measures of research use, for German residential long term care. BMC Research Notes, 7(1), 67.
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-05-02T17:14:06.640+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 285644
Last modified: 2015:10:12 12:26:17-06:00
Filename: BMC_RN_2014_7_67.pdf
Original checksum: c4734bb0523fd0364b61d93c54724170
Well formed: false
Valid: false
Status message: Invalid Resources Entry in document offset=4475
Status message: Invalid Resources Entry in document offset=4475
Status message: Invalid Annotation property offset=4475
Status message: Invalid outline dictionary item offset=259460
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date