EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

An instrument to measure nurses' knowledge in palliative care: Validation of the Spanish version of Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses

Elena Chover-Sierra, Antonio Martínez-Sabater and Yolanda Raquel Lapeña-Moñux

PLOS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, issue 5, 1-15

Abstract: Background: Palliative care is nowadays essential in nursing care, due to the increasing number of patients who require attention in final stages of their life. Purpose: To report the adaptation into the Spanish language and the psychometric analysis of the Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses. Method: The Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses-Spanish Version (PCQN-SV) was obtained from a process including translation, back-translation, comparison with versions in other languages, revision by experts, and pilot study. Content validity and reliability of questionnaire were analyzed. Difficulty and discrimination indexes of each item were also calculated according to Item Response Theory (IRT). Findings: Adequate internal consistency was found (S-CVI = 0.83); Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.67 and KR-20 test result of 0,72 reflected the reliability of PCQN-SV. The questionnaire had a global difficulty index of 0,55, with six items which could be considered as difficult or very difficult, and five items with could be considered easy or very easy. The discrimination indexes of the 20 items, show us that eight items are good or very good while six items are bad to discriminate between good and bad respondents. Discussion: Although in shows internal consistency, reliability and difficulty indexes similar to those obtained by versions of PCQN in other languages, a reformulation of the items with lowest content validity or discrimination indexes and those showing difficulties with their comprehension is an aspect to take into account in order to improve the PCQN-SV. Conclusion: The PCQN-SV is a useful Spanish language instrument for measuring Spanish nurses’ knowledge in palliative care and it is adequate to establish international comparisons.

Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177000 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 77000&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0177000

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177000

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-29
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177000