IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i3d10.1007_s40271-020-00409-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Initial Validation of a Patient-Reported Measure of Compassion: Determining the Content Validity and Clinical Sensibility among Patients Living with a Life-Limiting and Incurable Illness

Author

Listed:
  • Shane Sinclair

    (University of Calgary
    University of Calgary
    University of Calgary)

  • Priya Jaggi

    (University of Calgary
    University of Calgary)

  • Thomas F. Hack

    (University of Manitoba
    IH Asper Clinical Research Institute
    CancerCare Manitoba)

  • Lara Russell

    (Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences
    Trinity Western University)

  • Susan E. McClement

    (University of Manitoba)

  • Lena Cuthbertson

    (British Columbia Ministry of Health)

  • Lucy E. Selman

    (University of Bristol)

  • Carlo Leget

    (University of Humanistic Studies)

Abstract

Background Although compassionate care is considered a cornerstone of quality palliative care, there is a paucity of valid and reliable measures to study, assess, and evaluate how patients experience compassion/compassionate care in their care. Objective The aim was to develop a patient-reported compassion measure for use in research and clinical practice with established content-related validity evidence for the items, question stems, and response scale. Methods Content validation for an initial 109 items was conducted through a two-round modified Delphi technique, followed by cognitive interviews with patients. A panel of international Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and a Patient Advisory Group (PAG) assessed the items for their relevancy to their associated domain of compassion, yielding an Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), which was used to determine content modifications. The SMEs and the PAG also provided narrative feedback on the clarity, flow, and wording of the instructions, questions, and response scale, with items being modified accordingly. Cognitive interviews were conducted with 16 patients to further assess the clarity, comprehensibility, and readability of each item within the revised item pool. Results The first round of the Delphi review produced an overall CVI of 72% among SMEs and 80% among the PAG for the 109 items. Delphi panelists then reviewed a revised measure containing 84 items, generating an overall CVI of 84% for SMEs and 86% for the PAG. Sixty-eight items underwent further testing via cognitive interviews with patients, resulting in an additional 14 items being removed. Conclusions Having established this initial validity evidence, further testing to assess internal consistency, test–retest reliability, factor structure, and relationships to other variables is required to produce the first valid, reliable, and clinically informed patient-reported measure of compassion.

Suggested Citation

  • Shane Sinclair & Priya Jaggi & Thomas F. Hack & Lara Russell & Susan E. McClement & Lena Cuthbertson & Lucy E. Selman & Carlo Leget, 2020. "Initial Validation of a Patient-Reported Measure of Compassion: Determining the Content Validity and Clinical Sensibility among Patients Living with a Life-Limiting and Incurable Illness," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(3), pages 327-337, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00409-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00409-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00409-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00409-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00409-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.