MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402249368 · doi:10.1111/jan.16415

Psychometric Testing of an Instrument Assessing Family Knowledge, Contemplation, Confidence and Readiness for Engaging in Early Mobilisation of Critically Ill Patients: A Multi‐Site Cross‐Sectional Design

2024· article· en· W4402249368 on OpenAlexaff
Sasithorn Mukpradab, Michael Ireland, Georgia Tobiano, Kristen Ranse, Fiona Coyer, Kellie Sosnowski, Daren K. Heyland, Andrea P. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
FundersGriffith University
KeywordsPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisContemplationStructural equation modelingClinical psychologyDiscriminant validityApplied psychologyCross-sectional studyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is beneficial to support recovery among critically ill patients. The literature highlights the benefits of family engagement in early mobilisation, yet this practice remains underutilised. Effective implementation depends on understanding the key antecedents that influence family engagement in early mobilisation, specifically families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness. However, no measurement tools currently exist to assess these. Therefore, developing a psychometrically supported instrument is essential to understanding and enhancing families' factors influencing their engagement in early mobilisation. AIM: To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of an instrument to assess families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness to engage in early mobilisation. DESIGN: A multi-site cross-sectional survey design. METHODS: Based on established psychological theory (Social Cognitive Theories and Behaviour Change Theories), an item pool was developed to assess families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness to participate in early mobilisation. To psychometrically evaluate the new tool, a multi-site cross-sectional survey was undertaken from May 2020 to June 2022 across five intensive care units in Australia. Data from 370 families of critically ill patients were used to evaluate the structural, convergent and discriminant validity as well as the reliability of the new instrument. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit, supporting the proposed structure. All items displayed high standardised factor loadings except one, which improved upon freeing an error covariance. Positive inter-factor correlations were moderate to strong and were substantially lower than the square root of the average variance extracted, supporting both convergent and discriminant validity, respectively. Additionally, all subscales demonstrated well to excellent reliability. CONCLUSION: The findings provide preliminary support for the multiple types of validity evidence and the reliability of the instrument. This new instrument is suitable for use in clinical and research applications to assess families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness for their engagement in early mobilisation. IMPACT: Family engagement in early mobilisation activities may have multiple benefits but it is not commonly implemented in the ICU. Factors influencing family engagement in early mobilisation are poorly understood. Influential psychological theories highlight the likely importance of knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness. A readily available instrument designed to assess these constructs among family members is needed to deepen research understanding and guide clinical practice. The proposed instrument is designed to measure factors influencing family engagement in early mobilisation, which may support healthcare professionals and health services to identify and tailor strategies to support family engagement in early mobilisation. REPORTING METHOD: Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing was followed to report this study. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Family members of adult critically ill patients participated in this study, and they provided the data through the survey.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207