Psychometric Assessment of the Nursing Outcome Swallowing Status: Rasch Model Approach

Reliability and Validity of Non-Instrumental Clinical Assessments for Adults with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review

This systematic review on non-instrumental clinical assessment in adult oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) provides an overview of published measures with reported reliability and validity. In alignment with PRISMA, four databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched, resulting in a total of 16 measures and 32 psychometric studies included. The included measures assessed any aspect of swallowing, consisted of at least one specific subscale relating to swallowing, were developed by clinical observation, targeted adults, and were developed in English. The included psychometric studies focused on adults, reported on measures for OD-related conditions, described non-instrumental clinical assessments, reported on validity or reliability, and were published in English. Methodological quality was assessed using the standard quality assessment QualSyst. Most measures targeted only restricted subdomains within the conceptual framework of non-instrumental clinical assessments. Across the 16 measures, hypothesis testing and reliability were the most reported psychometrics, whilst structural validity and content validity were the least reported. Overall, data on the reliability and validity of the included measures proved incomplete and frequently did not meet current psychometric standards. Future research should focus on the development of comprehensive non-instrumental clinical assessments for adults with OD using contemporary psychometric research methods.

Ineffective health management in people with hypertension: Accuracy study

PURPOSE

To analyze the accuracy of the clinical indicators of the nursing diagnosis Ineffective Health Management in people with hypertension.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. The ineffective health management was investigated in 120 people with hypertension in a referral public outpatient clinic in Brazil between August and November 2020. The accuracy measures were analyzed using Rasch analysis, considering the difficulty of clinical indicator and person's ability.

RESULTS

Ineffective health management is probably present in 37.5% of people with hypertension. 'Failure to include treatment regimen in daily living' was the clinical indicator with the highest sensitivity value, and 'failure to take action to reduce risk factor' had the highest specificity value.

CONCLUSIONS

Rasch analysis demonstrated that all clinical indicators contribute significantly to estimating the presence of ineffective health management in people with hypertension in the outpatient scenario.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

This research contributes by providing accurate clinical indicators of ineffective health management, helping nurses prescribe and deliver the appropriate nursing interventions for people with hypertension by telenursing.

The use and quality of reporting of Rasch analysis in nursing research: A methodological scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rasch analysis is widely used in the life sciences. Rasch analysis is a mathematical and probabilistic model based on the assumption that the probability of passing a single item is governed by a person's ability and the difficulty of the item. However, its use in nursing science remains unclear.

AIM

To (i) describe the use of Rasch analysis in nursing research and (ii) determine the quality of reporting in nursing studies using Rasch models.

METHODS

A methodological scoping review of literature was conducted. The systematic electronic literature search was initially conducted on 1 February 2020 and updated on 16 April 2021 from PubMed/Medline and CINAHL databases. The search was limited to covering the timeframe from the earliest literature available until 31 December 2020. The search terms used were Rasch, IRT, item response theory, and nursing. The search was limited to the English language and title/abstract level. The analysis included quantification and content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 388 hits were identified. Following a two-phase retrieval process, 88 articles were included in the final analysis. Rasch analysis was used to test the psychometric properties of the newly developed instrument, and validate or test a short version of the existing instrument. The reporting of Rasch analysis demonstrated large variability in quality. Rating scale functioning, internal scale validity using goodness-of-fit statistics, and unidimensionality were the most frequently reported outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of Rasch analysis in nursing science was found to be unsystematic. Rasch analysis could provide new possibilities for investigating measurement properties. However, robust, comprehensive, and precise reporting of the methodological choices and results of Rasch analysis is needed. Furthermore, the use of Rasch analysis in nursing science is encouraged.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS.

Assessment of Neurological Status in Patients with Cerebrovascular Diseases through the Nursing Outcome Classification: A Methodological Study

Nurses play an important role in healthcare, and the Nursing Outcomes Classification is a key tool for the standardization of care. This study aims to validate the nursing outcome “Neurological Status” for patients with cerebrovascular diseases. A methodological study was performed in four phases. In Phase 1, the relevance of the indicators was evaluated by seven specialists and the modified kappa coefficient and content validity index were calculated. In Phase 2, conceptual and operational definitions were formulated. In addition, their content was validated with a focus group in Phase 3. In Phase 4, the results were applied in clinical practice and convergence with the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale was verified. The reliability was measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Of the 22 initial indicators, 6 were excluded. The focus group suggested changes in the definitions and the exclusion of two indicators. In Phase 4, only 13 indicators were validated due to the impossibility of measuring intracranial pressure. A strong correlation between the two scales and agreement among all the indicators were observed. Following the specialists’ review, the nursing outcome was reliable and clinically validated with 13 indicators: consciousness, orientation, language, central motor control, cranial sensory and motor function, spinal sensory and motor function, body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, eye movement pattern, pupil size, pupil reactivity, and breathing pattern.