Turkish Adaptation of the Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students: Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to analyze the validity and reliability of the "Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students" by adapting it to Turkish. Method: The research is a methodological type of study. The data of the study were obtained from 136 nursing students studying at a state university. Explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine the factor structure of the scale, and Cronbach's Alpha coefficient and item-total correlation were used for reliability. Results: In line with the results of explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis, the scale showed a four-dimensional structure. The factor loadings of all items belonging to the scale were found to be above 0.40. Without removing any item from the scale, a four sub-dimensional structure was accepted, with sub-dimensions similar to the original scale (x2/df=1.880 (good fit); SRMR=0.050 (good fit); RMSEA=0.081 (acceptable fit); GFI=0,870 (acceptable fit); TLI (NNFI)=0,905 (acceptable fit); CFI=0.924 (acceptable fit); IFI=0.926 (acceptable fit)). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the adapted scale was 0.928, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the sub-dimensions were 0.745, 0.806, 0.800, and 0.831, respectively. Conclusion: As a result of this study, it was determined that the "Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students" consisted of four sub-dimensions consisting of a total of 16 items. It has been determined that the scale is a valid and reliable assessment tool for determining the clinical reasoning readiness levels of nursing students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• clinical reasoning
• readiness
• nursing
• scale adaptation
• validity
• reliability

Hemşirelik Öğrencileri için Klinik Muhakeme Hazıroluşluk Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmada “Hemşirelik Öğrencileri için Klinik Muhakeme Hazıroluşluk Ölçeği (HÖKMHÖ)”’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanarak geçerlilik ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Araştırma metodolojik türde bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın verileri bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 136 hemşirelik öğrencisinden elde edilmiştir. Ölçeğin faktör yapısını belirlemek amacıyla açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, güvenirlilik için Cronbach Alfa katsayısı ve madde toplam korelasyonu kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları doğrultusunda ölçeğin dört boyutlu bir yapı göstermiştir. Ölçeğe ait bütün maddelerin faktör yüklerinin 0,40’ın üzerinde olduğu bulunmuştur. Ölçekten hiçbir madde çıkarmadan, orijinal ölçeğe benzer alt boyutlarda olacak şekilde, dört alt boyutlu yapı kabul edilmiştir (x2/df=1,880 (iyi uyum); SRMR=0,050 (iyi uyum); RMSEA=0,081 (kabul edilebilir uyum); GFI=0,870 (kabul edilebilir uyum); TLI (NNFI)=0,905 (kabul edilebilir uyum); CFI=0,924 (kabul edilebilir uyum); IFI=0,926 (kabul edilebilir uyum)). Uyarlanan ölçeğin Cronbach Alfa katsayısı 0.928; alt boyutların Cronbach Alfa katsayıları ise sırasıyla 0.745, 0.806, 0.800 ve 0.831 olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Bu çalışma sonucunda “Hemşirelik Öğrencileri için Klinik Muhakeme Hazıroluşluk Ölçeği”nin toplam 16 maddeden oluşan dört alt boyutlu yapıda olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin hemşirelik öğrencilerinin klinik muhakeme hazıroluşluk düzeylerini belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir değerlendirme aracı olduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• klinik muhakeme
• hazıroluşluk
• hemşirelik
• ölçek uyarlama
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. 1. Liou SR, Liu HC, Tsai HM, Tsai YH, Lin YC, Chang CH, Cheng CY. The development and psychometric testing of a theory‐based instrument to evaluate nurses’ perception of clinical reasoning competence. Journal of advanced nursing. 2016;72(3):707-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12831
2. 2. Banning M. Clinical reasoning and its application to nursing: Concepts and research studies. Nurse education in practice. 2008;8(3):177-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2007.06.004
3. 3. Alfaro-LeFevre R. Critical thinking, clinical reasoning and clinical judgment: A practical approach, Pageburst E-book on Kno: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.
4. 4. Levett-Jones T, Hoffman K, Bourgeois SR, Kenny R, Dempsey J, Hickey N, et al. Clinical reasoning. Instructor resources. 2009.
5. 5. Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Cheung RB, Sloane DM, Silber JH. Educational levels of hospital nurses and surgical patient mortality. Jama. 2003;290(12):1617-23. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.12.1617
6. 6. Simmons B. Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. Journal of advanced nursing. 2010;66(5):1151-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x
7. 7. Tanner CA. Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgment in nursing. Journal of nursing education. 2006;45(6):204-11. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
8. 8. Gonzalez L, Nielsen A, Lasater K. Developing students' clinical reasoning skills: A faculty guide. Journal of Nursing Education. 2021;60(9):485-93. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20210708-01

9. 9. Berkow S, Virkstis K, Stewart J, Conway L. Assessing new graduate nurse performance. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration. 2008;38(11):468-74. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNA.0000339477.50219.06
10. 10. Burns P, Poster EC. Competency development in new registered nurse graduates: Closing the gap between education and practice. The journal of continuing education in nursing. 2008;39(2):67-73. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20080201-03
11. 11. LaManna JB, Guido-Sanz F, Anderson M, Chase SK, Weiss JA, Blackwell CW. Teaching diagnostic reasoning to advanced practice nurses: positives and negatives. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2019;26:24-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.10.006
12. 12. Huang H-M, Huang C-Y, Kuan-Chia L, Chia-Hui Y, Cheng S-F. Development and Psychometric Testing of the Clinical Reasoning Scale Among Nursing Students Enrolled in Three Types of Programs in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Research. 2023;31(2):e263. https://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000547
13. 13. Huang H-M, Huang C-Y, Lee-Hsieh J, Cheng S-F. Establishing the competences of clinical reasoning for nursing students in Taiwan: From the nurse educators' perspectives. Nurse education today. 2018;66:110-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.04.007
14. 14. Huang HM. Development and Psychological Testing of A Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study. [Doctoral dissertation, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences School of Nursing]. 2018.
15. 15. Bernard RM, Zhang D, Abrami PC, Sicoly F, Borokhovski E, Surkes MA. Exploring the structure of the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: One scale or many subscales? Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2008;3(1):15-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2007.11.001
16. 16. Khoda MK, Saeid AM, Alavi MH, Yaghmaei F, Shahabi M. Translation and psychometric properties of California critical thinking skills test (form B). 2007. https://sid.ir/paper/108328/en
17. 17. Hidayah N, Ramli M, Mappiare A, Hanafi H, Yuliana AT, Kurniawan NA, Eva N. Developing Critical Thinking Skills Test In Indonesia. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology. 2020;17(3):815-26. https://doi.org/10.48080/jae.v17i3.178
18. 18. Semerci N. Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimi (EDE) Ölçeğinin Geliştiirlmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Rrevize Çalışması. Electronic Turkish Studies. 2016;11(9). https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9573
19. 19. Urhan E. Kamu hastanelerinde çalışan hemşirelerin eleştirel düşünme düzeylerinin belirlenmesi: Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.2019.
20. 20. Biçer S. Halkla İlişkiler ve Tanıtım Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Araştırma Yöntemleri Dersine Yönelik Tutumları ile Eleştirel Düşünmeye Yönelik Eğilimleri Arasındaki İlişki. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2021;11(1):73-98. https://doi.org/10.53495/e-kiad.949754
21. 21. Brunt BA. Critical thinking in nursing: An integrated review. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2005;36(2):60-7. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20050301-05.
22. 22. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. 2021.
23. 23. Mohammadi‐Shahboulaghi F, Khankeh H, HosseinZadeh T, editors. Clinical reasoning in nursing students: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum; 2021: Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12628
24. 24. Akgül A. Tıbbi araştırmalarda istatistiksel analiz teknikleri: SPSS uygulamaları: Yükseköğretim kurulu matbaası; 2005.
25. 25. International Test Commission I. Guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing. 2018;18(2):101-34.
26. 26. World Health Organization W. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. 2017.
27. 27. Larsson H, Tegern M, Monnier A, Skoglund J, Helander C, Persson E, et al. Content validity index and intra-and inter-rater reliability of a new muscle strength/endurance test battery for Swedish soldiers. PloS one. 2015;10(7):e0132185. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132185
28. 28. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2007;30(4):459-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
29. 29. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham R. Multivariate data analysis (7th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. 2010.
30. 30. Meydan CH, Şeşen H. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları: Detay Yayıncılık; 2011.
31. 31. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999;6(1):1-55.
32. 32. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics: pearson Boston, MA; 2013.
33. 33. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory 2nd ed: Mcgraw hill book company; 1978.
34. 34. Carpenter S. Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication methods and measures. 2018;12(1):25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
35. 35. Gliem JA, Gliem RR, editors. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In: Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education. 2003. p. 82-87.