Validity and reliability of the Home Health Care Survey of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (HHCAHPS) tool: a multicentre cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of the Home Health Care Survey of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (HHCAHPS) in the Italian context. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from the AIDOMUS-IT study. A total of 9,780 patients cared for by home healthcare services completed the HHCAHPS along with a measure of satisfaction for the care received. Structural validity was assessed with a confirmatory analytical approach (CFA). Construct validity was ascertained via hypothesis testing (convergent validity) by correlating the HHCAHPS scores with the scores derived from the measure of patient satisfaction for care. Internal consistency was assessed with the Omega (ω) coefficient. Results: Structural validity was confirmed, with satisfactory fit indices of the CFA model specified according to the conceptualized three-factor structure ("care of patients", "communication with the providers", and "specific care issues"). Construct validity was confirmed with moderate correlations between the level of satisfaction for care and the factors "communication with the providers" (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), "care of patients" (r = 0.34, p < 0.001), and "specific care issues" (r = 0.19, p < 0.001). Internal consistency was satisfactory for the "specific care issues" factor (ω = 0.81), while it was at the threshold of acceptability for the other factors (ω = 0.60-0.62). Conclusions: This study shows that the HHCAHPS is valid and sufficiently reliable when tested on the Italian population. Therefore, this tool can be supportive for promoting research and designing interventions to promote patient-centered care within home healthcare settings.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".