MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387157723 · doi:10.1111/jan.15873

Reliability and validity of the revised Rushton Moral Resilience Scale for healthcare workers

2023· article· en· W4387157723 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynda Hylton Rushton, Ginger C. Hanson, Danielle Boyce, Heidi Holtz, Katie E. Nelson, Edward G. Spilg, Rébecca Robillard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisScale (ratio)Cronbach's alphaReliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologyPsychological resilienceValidityStructural equation modelingSocial psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To refine the Rushton Moral Resilience Scale (RMRS) by creating a more concise scale, improving the reliability, particularly of the personal integrity subscale and providing further evidence of validity. BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are exposed to moral adversity in practice. When unable to preserve/restore their integrity, moral suffering ensues. Moral resilience is a resource that may mitigate negative consequences. To better understand mechanisms for doing so, a valid and reliable measurement tool is necessary. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Participants (N = 1297) had completed ≥1 items on the RMRS as part of the baseline survey of a larger longitudinal study. Item analysis, confirmatory factor analyses, reliability analyses (Cronbach's alpha), and correlations were used to establish reliability and validity of the revised RMRS. RESULTS: Item and confirmatory factor analysis were used to refine the RMRS from 21 to 16 items. The four-factor structure (responses to moral adversity, personal integrity, relational integrity and moral efficacy) demonstrated adequate fit in follow-up confirmatory analyses in the initial and hold-out sub-samples. All subscales and the total scale had adequate reliabilities (α ≥ 0.70). A higher-order factor analysis supports the computation of either subscale scores or a total scale score. Correlations of scores with stress, anxiety, depression and moral distress provide evidence of the scale's validity. Reliability of the personal integrity subscale improved. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The RMRS-16 demonstrates adequate reliability and validity, particularly the personal integrity subscale. Moral resilience is an important lever for reducing consequences when confronted with ethical challenges in practice. Improved reliability of the four subscales and having a shorter overall scale allow for targeted application and will facilitate further research and intervention development. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Data came from a larger study of Canadian healthcare workers from multiple healthcare organizations who completed a survey about their experiences during COVID-19.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207