MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012024592 · doi:10.1097/nan.0b013e3181f85a73

Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Phlebitis and Infiltration Scales for the Assessment of Complications of Peripheral Vascular Access Devices

2010· article· en· W2012024592 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infusion Nursing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsVictorian Order of NursesRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioQueen's University
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsInter-rater reliabilityInfiltration (HVAC)Concurrent validityMedicinePeripheralPsychometricsPhysical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyRating scaleInternal consistencyDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief To prevent complications from peripheral vascular access device (PVAD) therapy, the Infusion Nurses Society (INS) developed 2 scales to measure the extent and severity of phlebitis and infiltration in PVADs. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of these scales to validate them with respect to their interrater reliability, concurrent validity, feasibility, and acceptability. A total of 182 patients at 2 sites were enrolled, and 416 observations of PVAD sites were made. Two nurses independently rated each PVAD site for the presence or absence of phlebitis and/or infiltration by using the INS scales. The interrater reliability was calculated, as was the agreement of the observed versus charted incidence of phlebitis and infiltration (concurrent validity) and the ease of use of the scales (feasibility, acceptability). Interrater reliability for both the Phlebitis and Infiltration scales and concurrent validity were found to be statistically significant (P < .05). The study nurses reported the scales to be easy to use, taking an average of 1.3 minutes to complete both. The importance of valid measures for use in research cannot be underestimated. The INS Phlebitis and Infiltration scales have been shown to be easy to use, valid, and reliable scales. To prevent complications from peripheral vascular access device (PVAD) therapy, the Infusion Nurses Society (INS) developed 2 scales to measure the extent and severity of phlebitis and infiltration in PVADs. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of these scales to validate them with respect to their interrater reliability, concurrent validity, feasibility, and acceptability. A total of 182 patients at 2 sites were enrolled, and 416 observations of PVAD sites were made. Two nurses independently rated each PVAD site for the presence or absence of phlebitis and/or infiltration by using the INS scales. The interrater reliability was calculated, as was the agreement of the observed versus charted incidence of phlebitis and infiltration (concurrent validity) and the ease of use of the scales (feasibility, acceptability). Interrater reliability for both the Phlebitis and Infiltration scales and concurrent validity were found to be statistically significant (P < .05). The study nurses reported the scales to be easy to use, taking an average of 1.3 minutes to complete both. The importance of valid measures for use in research cannot be underestimated. The INS Phlebitis and Infiltration scales have been shown to be easy to use, valid, and reliable scales.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.329 · 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