Psychometric Properties of an Instrument to Measure Facilitators and Barriers to Nurses’ Participation in Continuing Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuing education programs are one of the professional principles in health-related disciplines, including nursing. The aim of this study was to develop an instrument measuring facilitators and barriers to nurses' participation in continuing education programs. METHODS: In the first phase, the items generated for the instrument were drawn from a comprehensive literature review along with a polling of experts. Then the psychometric properties were measured. RESULTS: A Scale-Level Content Validity Index of 0.90 for the primary instrument with 36 items was obtained. The factor structure of inventory was identified by undertaking a Principal Component Analysis in a sample of 361 nurses. Three factors were extracted with a total variance account of 62.67%. Reliability was demonstrated with Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.92. Consistency of instrument was established with test-retest reliability (Intra Cluster Correlation = 0.93, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The major focus of this study was to develop a locally sensitive instrument to assess the facilitators and barriers to Iranian nurses' participation in continuing education programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".