Development and Evaluation of an Instrument to Measure Parental Satisfaction With Quality of Care in Neonatal Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop and subsequently evaluate the psychometric properties of a new discriminative instrument to measure parental satisfaction with the quality of care provided in neonatal follow-up (NFU) programs. METHOD: The methodological framework for developing and evaluating measurement scales described by Streiner and Norman (Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003) was used for the study. Informing the phases of the research was a sample of 24 health care professionals and 381 parents who use NFU services. RESULTS: A comprehensive list of items representing the construct, parental satisfaction with quality of care, was generated from published reliable and valid instruments, research studies, focus groups with health care experts, and focus groups with parents. Using a clinimetric approach, the 62 items generated were reduced to 39 items based on parents' ratings of importance and refinement of the items by the research team. After content validation and pretesting, the instrument was tested with parents and underwent item-analysis. The resulting 16-item instrument was composed of 2 subscales, Process and Outcomes. Evaluation of the instrument's psychometric properties indicated adequate test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72) and internal consistency (Process subscale, alpha = 0.77; Outcomes subscale, alpha = 0.90; overall instrument, alpha = 0.90), as well as good content and construct validity. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the multidimensionality of the construct. CONCLUSION: This new instrument provides clinicians and policy-makers with a tool to assess parental satisfaction with the quality of care in NFU, so areas of dissatisfaction can be identified and changes implemented to optimize service provision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".