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

BMC Research Notes

Johann Behrens⁵  Andreas Kruse²  Carole A Estabrooks³  Janet E Squires⁴  Sarah Berger¹  Cornelia Mahler¹  Marion Bär²  Matthias Hoben⁵ 

[1] Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany;Institute of Gerontology (IfG), Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany;Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada;Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;Institute of Health and Nursing Sciences, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany

关键词: Residential long term care;    Research utilization;    Organizational context;    Conceptual research utilization scale;    Estabrooks’ kind of research utilization items;    Alberta context tool;    Translation;    Cognitive debriefing;   

Others  :  1134663
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-67

 received in 2013-08-28, accepted in 2014-01-28,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hoben et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Treusch Y, Jerosch D, Majic T, Heinz A, Gutzmann H, Rapp MA: How can we provide better services for demented nursing home residents suffering from apathy? Psychiatr Prax 2010, 37:84-88.
• [2]Majic T, Pluta JP, Mell T, Aichberger MC, Treusch Y, Gutzmann H, Heinz A, Rapp MA: The pharmacotherapy of neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia: a cross-sectional study in 18 homes for the elderly in Berlin. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 2010, 107:320-327.
• [3]Seidl U, Lueken U, Volker L, Re S, Becker S, Kruse A, Schröder J: Non-cognitive symptoms and psychopharmacological treatment in demented nursing home residents. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2007, 75:720-727.
• [4]Bredthauer D, Becker C, Eichner B, Koczy P, Nikolaus T: Factors relating to the use of physical restraints in psychogeriatric care: a paradigm for elder abuse. Z Gerontol Geriat 2005, 38:10-18.
• [5]Bartholomeyczik S, Reuther S, Luft L, van Nie N, Meijers J, Schols J, Halfens R: Prevalence of malnutrition, interventions and quality indicators in German nursing homes: first results of a nationwide pilot study. Gesundheitswesen 2010, 72:868-874.
• [6]Hardenacke D, Bartholomeyczik S, Halek M: Implementation and evaluation of “Understanding Diagnostics” on the example of the light house project InDemA. Pflege Gesellschaft 2011, 16:101-115.
• [7]Kuske B, Luck T, Hanns S, Matschinger H, Angermeyer MC, Behrens J, Riedel-Heller SG: Training in dementia care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a training program for nursing home staff in Germany. Int Psychogeriatr 2009, 21:295-308.
• [8]Sterns S, Miller SC, Allen S: The complexity of implementing culture change practices in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010, 11:511-518.
• [9]Greenhalgh T, Glenn R, Bate P, Macfarlane F, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations: a systematic literature review. Massachusetts, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell; 2005.
• [10]Kitson AL: The need for systems change: reflections on knowledge translation and organizational change. J Adv Nurs 2009, 65:217-228.
• [11]Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B: Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care 1998, 7:149-158.
• [12]McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Seers K: Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of ‘context’. J Adv Nurs 2002, 38:94-104.
• [13]Dopson S, Fitzgerald L (Eds): Knowledge to Action? Evidence-Based Health Care in Context. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• [14]Meijers JMM, Janssen MAP, Cummings GG, Wallin L, Estabrooks CA, Halfens RYG: Assessing the relationships between contextual factors and research utilization in nursing: systematic literature review. J Adv Nurs 2006, 55:622-635.
• [15]Rycroft-Malone J: The PARIHS framework: a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual 2004, 19:297-304.
• [16]Estabrooks CA, Kenny DJ, Adewale AJ, Cummings GG, Mallidou AA: A comparison of research utilization among nurses working in Canadian civilian and United States Army healthcare settings. Res Nurs Health 2007, 30:282-296.
• [17]Estabrooks CA, Scott SD, Squires JE, Stevens B, O’Brien-Pallas L, Watt-Watson J, Profetto-McGrath J, McGilton K, Golden-Biddle K, Lander J, et al.: Patterns of research utilization on patient care units. Implement Sci 2008, 3:31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Cummings GG, Teare GF, Norton PG: Study protocol for the translating research in elder care (TREC): building context - an organizational monitoring program in long-term care project (project one). Implement Sci 2009, 4:52. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Cummings GG, Hutchinson AM, Scott SD, Norton PG, Estabrooks CA: The relationship between characteristics of context and research utilization in a pediatric setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:168. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Hayduk LA, Cummings GG, Norton PG: Advancing the argument for validity of the Alberta context tool with healthcare aides in residential long-term care. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:107. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Hutchinson AM, Scott S, Cummings GG, Kang SH, Midodzi WK, Stevens B: Assessment of variation in the Alberta context tool: the contribution of unit level contextual factors and specialty in Canadian pediatric acute care settings. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:251. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Aarons GA, Glisson C, Green PD, Hoagwood K, Kelleher KJ, Landsverk JA: The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study. Implement Sci 2012, 7:56. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Masso M, McCarthy G: Literature review to identify factors that support implementation of evidence-based practice in residential aged care. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2009, 7:145-156.
• [24]Boström A-M, Slaughter SE, Chojecki D, Estabrooks CA: What do we know about knowledge translation in the care of older adults? A scoping review. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012, 13:210-219.
• [25]Estabrooks CA, Hutchinson AM, Squires JE, Birdsell J, Cummings GG, Degner L, Morgan D, Norton PG: Translating research in elder care: an introduction to a study protocol series. Implement Sci 2009, 4:51. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Rahman AN, Applebaum RA, Schnelle JF, Simmons SF: Translating research into practice in nursing homes: can we close the gap? Gerontologist 2012, 52:597-606.
• [27]Hoben M, Mahler C, Bär M, Berger S, Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, Behrens J: German translation of the Alberta Context Tool and two measures of research use: methods, challenges and lessons learned. BMC Health Serv Res 2013, 13:478. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Adachi A-M, Kong L, Norton PG: Utilization of health research in acute care settings in Alberta (ACUTE). Technical Report No. 08-01-TR, April 2008. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing; 2008.
• [29]Hutchinson AM, Kong L, Adachi A-M, Estabrooks CA, Stevens B: Context and research use in the care of children: a pilot study. Technical report no. 08-03-TR, October 2008. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing; 2008.
• [30]Squires JE, Kong L, Brooker S, Mitchell A, Sales AE, Estabrooks CA: Examining the role of context in alzheimer care centers: a pilot study. Technical report no. 08-04-TR, June 2009. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing; 2009.
• [31]Estabrooks CA: Modeling the individual determinants of research utilization. West J Nurs Res 1999, 21:758-772.
• [32]Estabrooks CA: The conceptual structure of research utilization. Res Nurs Health 1999, 22:203-216.
• [33]Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, Newburn-Cook CV, Gierl M: Validation of the conceptual research utilization scale: an application of the standards for educational and psychological testing in healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:107. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Squires JE, Hayduk L, Hutchinson AM, Cranley LA, Gierl M, Cummings GG, Norton PG, Estabrooks CA: A protocol for advanced psychometric assessment of surveys. Nurs Res Pract 2013, 2013:156782.
• [35]Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, O’Rourke HM, Gustavsson P, Newburn-Cook CV, Wallin L: A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare. Implement Sci 2011, 6:83. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Cummings GG, Birdsell JM, Norton PG: Development and assessment of the Alberta Context Tool. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:234. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK: Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs 2004, 48:175-186.
• [38]Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N: Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health 2008, 11:509-521.
• [39]Mear I, Giroudet C: Linguistic validation procedures. In Linguistic Validation Manual for Health Outcome Assessments. 2nd edition. Edited by Acquadro C, Conway K, Giroudet C, Mear I. Lyon: MAPI Institute; 2012:33-117.
• [40]Acquadro C, Conway K, Giroudet C, Mear I (Eds): Linguistic Validation Manual for Health Outcome Assessments. 2nd edition. Lyon: MAPI Institute; 2012.
• [41]Willis GB: Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.
• [42]American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME): Standards for educational and psychological testing. 5th edition. Washington, DC: AERA; 1999.
• [43]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
• [44]Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P: Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005, 8:94-104.
• [45]Marshall MN: Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract 1996, 13:522-525.
• [46]Schuman H: The random probe: a technique for evaluating validity of closed questions. Am Sociol Rev 1966, 31:218-222.
• [47]Mayring P: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 11th edition. Beltz: Weinheim, Basel; 2010.
• [48]Mayring P: Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qual Soc Res 2000, 1:2.
• [49]Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH: Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci 2013, 8:22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [50]Proctor EK, Brownson RC: Measurement issues in dissemination and implementation research. In Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Edited by Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012:261-280.
• [51]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Strandberg E, Nilsson-Kajermo K, Scott SD, Profetto-McGrath J, Harley D, Wallin L: Towards better measures of research utilization: a collaborative study in Canada and Sweden. J Adv Nurs 2011, 67:1705-1718.
• [52]Squires JE, Adachi AM, Estabrooks CA: Developing a valid and reliable measure of research utilization: measurement technical report. Report no. 08-02-TR, November 2008. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing; 2008.
• [53]Estabrooks CA, Chong H, Brigidear K, Profetto-McGrath J: Profiling Canadian nurses’ preferred knowledge sources for clinical practice. Can J Nurs Res 2005, 37:118-140.
• [54]Estabrooks CA, Rutakumwa W, O’Leary KA, Profetto-McGrath J, Milner M, Levers MJ, Scott-Findlay S: Sources of practice knowledge among nurses. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:460-476.
• [55]Spenceley SM, O’Leary KA, Chizawsky LL, Ross AJ, Estabrooks CA: Sources of information used by nurses to inform practice: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud 2008, 45:954-970.
• [56]Statistisches Bundesamt: Pflegestatistik 2011: Pflege im Rahmen der Pflegeversicherung – Deutschlandergebnisse. Statistisches Bundesamt: Wiesbaden; 2013.
• [57]Boström AM, Wallin L, Nordström G: Research use in the care of older people: a survey among healthcare staff. Int J Older People Nurs 2006, 1:131-140.
• [58]Boström AM, Wallin L, Nordström G: Evidence-based practice and determinants of research use in elderly care in Sweden. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13:665-673.
• [59]Connor N: The relationship between organizational culture and research utilization practices among nursing home departmental staff. In PhD Thesis. Dalhousie University; 2007.