MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976401869 · doi:10.1111/jocn.12189

Construct validity and reliability of the Handover Evaluation Scale

2013· article· en· W1976401869 on OpenAlexaff
Bev OʼConnell, Cherene Ockerby, Mary Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisHandoverScale (ratio)Exploratory factor analysisReliability (semiconductor)Relevance (law)Construct (python library)Construct validityQuality (philosophy)Health carePsychologyApplied psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychometricsNursingComputer scienceProcess managementMedicineClinical psychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine the psychometric properties of the Handover Evaluation Scale using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. BACKGROUND: Handover is a fundamental component of clinical practice and is essential to ensure safe patient care. Research indicates a number of problems with this process, with high variability in the type of information provided. Despite the reported deficits with handover practices internationally, guidelines and standardised tools for its conduct and evaluation are scarce. Further work is required to develop an instrument that measures the effectiveness of handover in a valid and reliable way. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data collected between 2006-2008 from nurses working on 24 wards across a large Australian healthcare service. METHODS: A sample of 299 nurses completed the survey that included 20 self-report items which evaluated the effectiveness of handover. Data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported by structural equation modelling. RESULTS: Analyses resulted in a 14-item Handover Evaluation Scale with three subscales: (1) quality of information (six items), (2) interaction and support (five items) and (3) efficiency (three items). A fourth subscale, patient involvement (three items), was removed from the scale as it was not a good measure of handover. CONCLUSIONS: The scale is a self-report, valid and reliable measure of the handover process. It provides a useful tool for monitoring and evaluating handover processes in health organisations, and it is recommended for use and further development. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Monitoring handover is an important quality assurance process that is required to meet healthcare standards. This reliable and valid scale can be used in practice to monitor the quality of handover and provide information that can form the basis of education and training packages and guidelines to improve handover policies and processes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207