Developing and Testing Instruments to Measure Client Outcomes at the Comox Valley Nursing Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Nursing Centre in Canada was initiated to demonstrate nursing practice in a primary health care context, unencumbered by conventional health care agency parameters. As one part of a multimethod evaluation, a 5 instrument client questionnaire was designed. The main instrument was developed by the researchers to measure the impact of the Centre and nurses' work from the perspective of clients. No established instrument could be found that was appropriate for the Centre's diverse client population and nature and variation in outcomes. To guide the development of the new instrument, minimally structured client interviews were conducted with 15 clients. To assess the validity and reliability of other selected instruments for the population, clients were asked to comment on the appropriateness of items. Based on findings, the Nurses' Work and Client Outcomes Questionnaire (NWCOQ) was developed, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire and demographic questions modified, and a Cantril Self-Anchoring ladder to assess health status was supported for use. An open section was added to invite further description of clients' experiences, in particular, the unexpected, contrary or outstanding. Further pilot work was done and the refined five instrument questionnaire then was used to survey all clients who used the Centre during a seven month period. Findings from the NWCOQ revealed the nature of the nurses' work and the degree change occurred for clients on multiple health dimensions: physical, emotional, managing their situation, and group and community involvement. Clients were highly satisfied with the Centre and experienced many positive outcomes. The quantitative instruments and results were examined in relation to results from other data collection approaches and data sources. The NWCOQ has evidence of content validity and internal consistency reliability. The use of qualitative methods to develop and refine quantitative instruments for assessment of health outcomes for diverse client populations is highly recommended. This strategy is feasible even when outcome measurement timeframes are short.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".