Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

The Chinese version of attitudes towards guidelines scale: validity and reliability assessment

Authors: Wen Yan, Qian Chen, Xuemei Zhang, Marko Elovainio, Yan Huang

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of guidelines has shown to improve clinical practice process and structure of health care, but health care providers don’t always use and keep up-to-date with the new clinical practice guidelines. Nurses’ attitudes towards guidelines have shown to be the most frequently identified factor affecting their actual use of clinical practice guidelines, but no instruments for measuring it are available in China. There are scales validated in the western countries, but there is no information about their validity in Chinese health care. The purpose of this study is to test the validity and reliability of Chinese Attitudes towards guidelines - scale for nurses.

Methods

The study was conducted from April to July 2017. The Attitudes towards guidelines scale was translated into Chinese with forward-backward translation method and a questionnaire survey was conducted. Eight hundred randomly selected nurses (final N = 768) from Geriatrics, Internal medical and Rehabilitation departments of 16 hospitals were drawn in Sichuan province, China. Construct validity was evaluated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability was assessed by test-retest reliability (represented by intra class correlation) and internal consistency (expressed by Cronbach’s coefficients). The test-retest reliability was examined with a sample of 32 clinical nurses who filled out the questionnaire 14 days after the first survey.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis supported a four-factor model for the Chinese version of the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the hypothetical four-factor model fitted the data relatively well. The intra class correlation coefficient was 0.85 (95%CI, 0.68–0.93) and the Cronbach’s alpha values for the four subscales ranged from 0.645 to 0.912.

Conclusions

The results support the acceptable level of validity and reliability of the Chinese version of Attitudes towards guidelines scale, which can be used to assess nurses’ attitudes towards guidelines in China. Future testing for the Chinese version of Attitudes towards guidelines scale needs to be carried out to see whether these results are generalizable to other professionals and occupational groups and to be used to revise attitudes towards specific guidelines in China.
Literature
1.
Trustworthy IOMU, Guidelines CP: Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
2.
Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Westert GP. Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(5):385–92.
3.
Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):527–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Pagliari H, Kahan J: Changing Professional Practice in Health Care: Danish Institute for Health Services Research and Development; 1999.
5.
Erasmus V, Daha TJ, Brug H, Richardus JH, Behrendt MD, Vos MC, van Beeck EF. Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(3):283–94.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Xin Z, Changying C, Gaihong Q, Yan C, Hongyin M. Investigation on understandings of the China clinical blood glucose monitoring guideline among endocrinology nurses. J Sci Nurs. 2014;29(23):52–4.
7.
Quiros D, Lin S, Larson EL. Attitudes toward practice guidelines among intensive care unit personnel: a cross-sectional anonymous survey. Heart Lung. 2007;36(4):287–97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Bahtsevani C, Willman A, Stoltz P, Ostman M. Experiences of the implementation of clinical practice guidelines--interviews with nurse managers and nurses in hospital care. Scand J Caring Sci. 2010;24(3):514–22.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Janssen MA, van Achterberg T, Adriaansen MJ, Kampshoff CS, Schalk DM, Mintjes-de GJ. Factors influencing the implementation of the guideline triage in emergency departments: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(3–4):437–47.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Abrahamson KA, Fox RL, Doebbeling BN. Facilitators and barriers to clinical practice guideline use among nurses. Am J Nurs. 2012;112(7):26–35 46.PubMedCrossRef
11.
McCluskey A, Vratsistas-Curto A, Schurr K. Barriers and enablers to implementing multiple stroke guideline recommendations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:323.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Jeffery AD, Pickler RH. Barriers to nurses' adherence to central venous catheter guidelines. J Nurs Adm. 2014;44(7/8):429–35.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Jun J, Kovner CT, Stimpfel AW. Barriers and facilitators of nurses' use of clinical practice guidelines: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;60:54–68.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Chenlu Z, Yun C, Lirong Z. Barriers and facilitators of nurses' implementation of evidenced-based clinical nursing guideline for nasogastric tube feeding in adult patients. J Nurs Sci. 2017;32(2):65–8.
15.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91.CrossRef
16.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459–67.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):466–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Robinson JB, Wetherell JL. An interdisciplinary intervention for fear of falling: lessons learned from two case studies. Clin Gerontol. 2018;41(4):366–73.PubMedCrossRef
20.
21.
Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10.CrossRef
22.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure Anaysis: conventional criteria versus new. Alternatives. 1999;6(1):1–55.
23.
Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res. 1990;25(2):173–80.CrossRef
24.
Xiaohua J, Zhuozhi S, Nannan Z, Hongxiu L, Haiyan X. Reliability and validity analysis of the questionnaire. Mod Prev Med. 2010;37(3):429–31.
25.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Mallery D, George P. SPSS for windows step-by-step: a simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2002.
27.
Liu L, Yuan C. Construction of palliative care training contents in China: a Delphi study. Cancer Nurs. 2009;32(6):446–55.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Larson E. A tool to assess barriers to adherence to hand hygiene guideline. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(1):48–51.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Elovainio M, Makela M, Sinervo T, Kivimaki M, Eccles M, Kahan J. Effects of job characteristics, team climate, and attitudes towards clinical guidelines. Scand J Public Health. 2000;28(2):117–22.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Touze E, Saillour-Glenisson F, Durieux P, Verdier A, Leyshon S, Bendavid S, Attard T, Scheimann A, Mas JL, Coste J. Lack of validity of a French adaptation of a scale measuring attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18(3):195–202.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):I46–54.
Metadata
Title
The Chinese version of attitudes towards guidelines scale: validity and reliability assessment
Authors
Wen Yan
Qian Chen
Xuemei Zhang
Marko Elovainio
Yan Huang
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0682-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

A comparison of methods to estimate the survivor average causal effect in the presence of missing data: a simulation study

Research article

The agreement between chronic diseases reported by patients and derived from administrative data in patients undergoing joint arthroplasty

Research article

Strategies for recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for a clinical trial

Research article

Tests of trend between disease outcomes and ordinal covariates discretized from underlying continuous variables: simulation studies and applications to NHANES 2007–2008

Research article

Validation of the short assessment of health literacy (SAHL-D) and short-form development: Rasch analysis

Research article

Robustness of the Tariff method for diagnosing verbal autopsies: impact of additional site data on the relationship between symptom and cause