Measuring Scope of Practice Enactment Among Primary Care Registered Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scope of practice enactment is poorly understood in the primary care setting. PURPOSE: The following research objectives were addressed: (1) to revise and adapt the Actual Scope of Practice (ASCOP) questionnaire for use in the primary care setting, and (2) to determine internal consistency, construct validity, and sensitivity of the modified instrument. METHODS: To address the first objective, a narrative literature review and synthesis and an expert panel review was conducted. To address the second objective, a cross-sectional survey of 178 registered nurses who worked in primary care was conducted. RESULTS: The ASCOP, with few modifications, addressed key attributes of nursing scope of practice in the primary care setting. The modified instrument yielded acceptable alpha coefficients ranging from 0.66 to 0.91. Total mean score of 4.8 (SD = .67) suggests that registered nurses within interprofessional primary care teams almost always engage in activities reflected in the modified instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The modified instrument is the first instrument validated to measure nursing scope of practice enactment in the primary care setting. Findings from this study support the use of the modified ASCOP questionnaire as a reliable and valid measure of scope of practice enactment among primary care registered nurses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".