The Validity and Reliability of the Individualised Care Scale
8.3 Reliability
8.3.3 Item Analysis
Item analysis means evaluation of the performance of a single item. An item with high correlation with the underlying construct is ideal but often hard to achieve ([3], p. 486). Item analysis is a well-known method to evaluate internal consistency of the scale, and there are several types to investigate the item functioning, inter-item correlation and item-scale correlation (with uncorrected or corrected approach) being the most popular [59]. Item analysis for ICS has been used several times with different samples (such as [4, 5, 19, 21, 39]). Inter-item correlations were tested particularly during the instrument development process where both ICA and ICB scales showed acceptable (0.30 ≤ r ≤ 0.70, [26]) correlations (0.49–0.62, 0.42–
0.59), respectively. This result was supported in later studies [4, 11, 12] and in the study of Amaral et al. [5] where no redundant items were identified. Item-to-total correlations also supported internal consistency of the ICS [4, 9, 11, 16, 36] as well as average inter-item correlations [11] and item-to-total analyses [15].
Conclusions
The process of obtaining information about validity and reliability is an impor- tant and ongoing process. Validity and reliability have different levels which can be assessed with different samples. Psychometric testing does not have an end- point, and whenever an instrument or scale is used, its validity and reliability need to be demonstrated [2, 24].
The ICS has been developed systematically. Its validity and reliability have been confirmed in several national, international and cross-cultural studies. The ICS has excellent internal consistency, which has remained at the same level from study to another. The theoretical structure behind the ICS is strong and has been supported in many studies. Several studies have also demonstrated high construct validity of the ICS. The ICS has undergone a systematic development process, and its psychometric properties have been tested frequently, making it a reliable and valid scale in the context of nursing and health sciences.
Country (language)
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
References
ICS-patient ICS-nurse
ICS-A ICS-B ICS-A ICS-B
Turkey (Turkish) 0.92 0.93 [21]
0.94 0.93 [38]
0.94 0.95 [54]
0.95 0.95 [55]
0.91 0.91 [39]
UK (English) 0.97 0.95 [56]
0.97 0.95 [12]
USA (English) 0.94 0.93 [12]
0.95 0.93 [39]
Table 8.2 (continued)
References
1. Waltz CF, Strickland OR, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing and health research. 5th ed.
New York: Springer; 2016.
2. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(2):155–64.
3. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research. Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice.
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
4. Suhonen R, Leino-Kilpi H, Välimäki M. Development and psychometric properties of the individualized care scale. J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11(1):7–20.
5. Amaral A, Ferreira P, Suhonen R. Translation and validation of the individualized care scale.
Int J Caring Sci. 2014;7(1):90–101.
6. Berg A, Suhonen R, Idvall E. A survey of orthopaedic patients’ assessment of care using the individualised care scale. J Orthop Nurs. 2007;11(3):185–90.
7. Petroz U, Kennedy D, Webster F, et al. Patients’ perceptions of individualized care: evalu- ating psychometric properties and results of the individualized care scale. Can J Nurs Res.
2011;43(1):80–100.
8. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Leino-Kilpi H, et al. Testing the individualized care model. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18(1):27–36.
9. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Katajisto J, et al. Provision of individualised care improves hospital patient outcomes: an explanatory model using LISREL. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44(2):197–207.
10. Suhonen R, Schmidt LA, Radwin L. Measuring individualized nursing care: assessment of reliability and validity of three scales. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59(1):77–85.
11. Suhonen R, Gustafsson ML, Katajisto J, et al. Individualized care scale - nurse version: a Finnish validation study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(1):145–54.
12. Suhonen R, Berg A, Idvall E, et al. Adapting the individualized care scale for cross-cultural comparison. Scand J Caring Sci. 2010;24(2):392–403.
13. Suhonen R, Efstathiou G, Tsangari H, et al. Patients’ and nurses’ perceptions of individualised care: an international comparative study. J Clin Nurs. 2011;21(7–8):1155–67.
14. Suhonen R, Alikleemola P, Katajisto J, et al. Nurses’ assessments of individualised care in long-term care institutions. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(7–8):1178–88.
15. Charalambous A, Chappell NL, Katajisto J, et al. The conceptualization and measurement of individualized care. Geriatr Nurs. 2012;33(1):17–27.
16. Köberich S, Suhonen R, Feuchtinger J, et al. The German version of the individualized care scale - assessing validity and reliability. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;23:483–94.
17. Rasooli A, Zamanzadeh V, Rahmani A, et al. Patients’ point of view about nurses’ support of individualized nursing care in training hospitals affiliated with Tabriz university of medical sciences. J Caring Sci. 2013;2(3):203–9.
18. Rovetta F, Giordano A, Manara DF. The measurement of individualized care: translation and validation semantics of individualized care scale. Prof Inferm. 2012;65:39–45.
19. Amaral A, Fereira PL, Cardoso ML, et al. Implementation of the nursing role effectiveness model. Int J Caring Sci. 2014;7(7):757–70.
20. Berg A, Idvall E, Katajisto J, et al. A comparison between orthopaedic nurses’ and patients’
perception of individualised care. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2012;16(3):136–46.
21. Acaroglu R, Suhonen R, Sendir M, et al. Reliability and validity of Turkish version of the individualised care scale. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(1):136–45.
22. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Katajisto J. Developing and testing an instrument for the measure- ment of individual care. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(5):1253–63.
23. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international con- sensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.
24. Bannigan K, Watson R. Reliability and validity in a nutshell. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(11–12):
3237–43.
25. Soeken KL. Validity of measures. In: Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER, editors. Measurement in nursing and health research. 5th ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 209–60.
26. Davis AE. Instrument development: getting started. J Neurosci Nurs. 1996;28(3):204–7.
27. Köberich S, Feuchtinger J, Farin E. Factors influencing hospitalized patients percep- tion of individualized nursing care - a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2016;15:14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-016-0137-7.
28. Charalambous A, Radwin L, Berg A, et al. An international study of hospitalized cancer patients’ health status, nursing care quality, perceived individuality in care and trust in nurses:
a path analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;61(1):176–86.
29. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Berg A, et al. The impact of patient characteristics on orthopaedic and trauma patients’ perceptions of individualised nursing care. Int J Evid Based Healthc.
2010;8(4):259–67.
30. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Katajisto J, et al. Patient characteristics in relation to perceptions of how individualized care is delivered-research into the sensitivity of the individualized care scale. J Prof Nurs. 2006;22(4):253–61.
31. Suhonen R, Charalambous A, Berg A, et al. Hospitalised cancer patients’ perceptions of indi- vidualised nursing care in four European countries. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018;27(1):
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12525.
32. Suhonen R, Schmidt LA, Katajisto J, et al. Cross-cultural validity of the individualised care scale - a Rasch model analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(5–6):648–60.
33. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model. Fundamental measurement in the human sci- ences. New York: Routledge; 2015.
34. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Pscyhol Bull. 1959;56(1):81–105.
35. Hays RD, Hayashi T. Beyond internal consistency reliability: rationale and user’s guide for multitrait scaling analysis program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1990;22(2):167–75.
36. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Katajisto J, et al. Hospitals’ organizational variables and patients’
perceptions of individualized nursing care in Finland. J Nurs Manag. 2007;15(2):197–206.
37. Papastavrou E, Acaroglu R, Sendir M, et al. The relationship between individualized care and the practice environment: an international study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(1):121–33.
38. Gurdogan E, Findik U, Arslan B. Patients’ perception of individualized care and satisfaction with nursing care levels in Turkey. Int J Caring Sci. 2015;8(2):369–75.
39. Suhonen R, Papastavrou E, Efstathiou G, et al. Nurses’ perceptions of individualized care: an international comparison. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(9):1895–907.
40. Yang I. Individualized care, satisfaction with nursing care and health-related quality of life- focusing on heart disease. J Women’s Health. 2008;9(1):37–56.
41. Rose PM. Individualized care in the radiation oncology setting from the patients’ and nurses’
perspectives. Cancer Nurs. 2016;39(5):411–22.
42. Charalambous A, Katajisto J, Valimaki M, et al. Individualised care and the professional prac- tice environment: nurses’ perceptions. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57(4):500–7.
43. Makkonen A, Hupli M, Suhonen R. Potilaiden näkemys hoidon yksilöllisyydestä ajanvaraspo- liklinikalla. Hoitotiede. 2010;22(2):129–40.
44. Rodríguez-Martín B, Stolt M, Katajisto J, et al. Nurses’ characteristics and organisational factors associated with their assessments of individualised care in care institutions for older people. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(2):250–9.
45. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Leino-Kilpi H. Individualized care, quality of life and satisfaction with nursing care. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(3):283–92.
46. Suhonen R, Gustafsson ML, Katajisto J, et al. Nurses’ perceptions of individualized care. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(5):1035–46.
47. Suhonen R, Stolt M, Puro M, et al. Individuality in older people’s care - challenges for the development of nursing and nursing management. J Nurs Manag. 2011;19(7):883–96.
48. Suhonen R, Charalambous A, Stolt M, et al. Caregivers’ work satisfaction and individualised care in care settings for older people. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(3–4):479–90.
49. Suhonen R, Tsangari H, Leino-Kilpi H, et al. Individualised care - comparison of patients’ and nurses’ assessments. Hoitotiede. 2013;25(2):80–91.
50. Suhonen R, Stolt M, Gustafsson ML, et al. The associations among the ethical climate, the professional practice environment and individualized care in care settings for older people. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(6):1356–68.
51. Suhonen R, Leino-Kilpi H. Older orthopaedic patients’ perceptions of individualised care: a comparative survey. Int J Older People Nursing. 2012;7(2):105–16.
52. Berg A, Rask M. Patienternas syn på individualiserad vård på en ortopedisk klinik. Collaborative and integrated approaches to health. Kristianstad: Forskningsplattformen för utveckling av närsjukvård; 2008. p. 25.
53. Nygårdh A, Malm D, Wikby K, et al. Empowerment intervention in outpatient care of persons with chronic kidney disease pre-dialysis. Nephrol Nurs J. 2012;39(4):285–93.
54. Tekin F, Findik UY. Level of perception of individualized care and satisfaction with nursing in orthopaedic surgery patients. Orthop Nurs. 2015;34(6):371–4.
55. Ceylan B, Eser I. Assessment of individualized nursing care in hospitalized patients in a uni- versity hospital in Turkey. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24(7):954–61.
56. Land L, Suhonen R. Orthopaedic and trauma patients’ perceptions of individualized care. Int Nurs Rev. 2009;56(1):131–7.
57. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement prop- erties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
58. Suhonen R, Välimäki M, Katajisto J. Individualized care in a Finnish healthcare organization.
J Clin Nurs. 2000;9(2):218–27.
59. Ferketich S. Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis. Res Nurs Health.
1991;14(2):165–8.
91
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 R. Suhonen et al. (eds.), Individualized Care,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89899-5_9 J. Koskenvuori (*) · M. Stolt
Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
R. Suhonen
Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Turku University Hospital, City of Turku, Welfare Division, Turku, Finland e-mail: [email protected]