MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2616488572 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177000

An instrument to measure nurses' knowledge in palliative care: Validation of the Spanish version of Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses

2017· article· en· W2616488572 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elena Chover‐Sierra, Antonio Martínez‐Sabater, Yolanda Raquel Lapeña-Moñux

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitat de ValènciaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsPalliative careCronbach's alphaReliability (semiconductor)NursingMedicinePsychologyPsychometricsAdaptation (eye)Test (biology)ValidityFamily medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is nowadays essential in nursing care, due to the increasing number of patients who require attention in final stages of their life. Nurses need to acquire specific knowledge and abilities to provide quality palliative care. Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses is a questionnaire that evaluates their basic knowledge about palliative care. The Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses (PCQN) is useful to evaluate basic knowledge about palliative care, but its adaptation into the Spanish language and the analysis of its effectiveness and utility for Spanish culture is lacking. PURPOSE: To report the adaptation into the Spanish language and the psychometric analysis of the Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses. METHOD: The Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses-Spanish Version (PCQN-SV) was obtained from a process including translation, back-translation, comparison with versions in other languages, revision by experts, and pilot study. Content validity and reliability of questionnaire were analyzed. Difficulty and discrimination indexes of each item were also calculated according to Item Response Theory (IRT). FINDINGS: Adequate internal consistency was found (S-CVI = 0.83); Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.67 and KR-20 test result of 0,72 reflected the reliability of PCQN-SV. The questionnaire had a global difficulty index of 0,55, with six items which could be considered as difficult or very difficult, and five items with could be considered easy or very easy. The discrimination indexes of the 20 items, show us that eight items are good or very good while six items are bad to discriminate between good and bad respondents. DISCUSSION: Although in shows internal consistency, reliability and difficulty indexes similar to those obtained by versions of PCQN in other languages, a reformulation of the items with lowest content validity or discrimination indexes and those showing difficulties with their comprehension is an aspect to take into account in order to improve the PCQN-SV. CONCLUSION: The PCQN-SV is a useful Spanish language instrument for measuring Spanish nurses' knowledge in palliative care and it is adequate to establish international comparisons.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→