IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i5-6pe1179-e1188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and measurement invariance of the Physical Restraint Use Questionnaire (PRUQ) in nursing staff

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Penelo
  • Gabriel J. Estévez‐Guerra
  • Emilio Fariña‐López

Abstract

Aims and objectives To study the internal structure and measurement invariance of the Physical Restraint Use Questionnaire and to compare perceptions, experience and training, regarding use of physical restraint on the older people between nursing staff working in hospitals and nursing homes. Background Physical restraint of patients is still common in many countries, and thus, it is important to study the attitudes of nursing staff. One of the most common tools used to assess perceptions regarding its use is the Physical Restraint Use Questionnaire. However, gaps exist in its internal structure and measurement invariance across different groups of respondents. Design Cross‐sectional multicentre survey. Methods Data were collected from nurses working in eight Spanish hospitals and 19 nursing homes. All registered nurses and nurse assistants (N = 3,838) were contacted, of whom 1,635 agreed to participate. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to determine internal structure and measurement invariance of Physical Restraint Use Questionnaire, after which scale scores and other measures of experience and training were compared between hospital‐based (n = 855) and nursing homes‐based (n = 780) nurses. Results The Physical Restraint Use Questionnaire showed three invariant factors across type of facility, and also professional category and sex. Nursing staff working in both types of facility scored similarly; prevention of therapy disruption and prevention of falls were rated more important. Nurses working in nursing homes reported using restraint “many times” more frequently (52.9% vs. 38.6%), less severe lack of training (18.2% vs. 58.7%) being perceived as more adequate (33.4% vs. 17.7%), than hospital‐based nurses. Conclusions These findings support Physical Restraint Use Questionnaire as a valid and reliable tool for assessing the importance given to the use of physical restraint in the older people by nursing professionals, regardless of the setting being studied. Relevance to clinical practice The information would help design more specifically the physical restraint training of nursing staff and to plan institutional interventions aimed at reducing its use.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Penelo & Gabriel J. Estévez‐Guerra & Emilio Fariña‐López, 2018. "Validity and measurement invariance of the Physical Restraint Use Questionnaire (PRUQ) in nursing staff," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1179-1188, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:5-6:p:e1179-e1188
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14253
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14253?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Meredith, 1993. "Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 525-543, December.
    2. William Revelle & Richard Zinbarg, 2009. "Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 145-154, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alvisa Palese & Jessica Longhini & Angela Businarolo & Tiziana Piccin & Giuliana Pitacco & Livia Bicego, 2021. "Between Restrictive and Supportive Devices in the Context of Physical Restraints: Findings from a Large Mixed-Method Study Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeanne A. Teresi & Katja Ocepek-Welikson & John A. Toner & Marjorie Kleinman & Mildred Ramirez & Joseph P. Eimicke & Barry J. Gurland & Albert Siu, 2017. "Methodological Issues in Measuring Subjective Well-Being and Quality-of-Life: Applications to Assessment of Affect in Older, Chronically and Cognitively Impaired, Ethnically Diverse Groups Using the F," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 251-288, June.
    2. Johan Oud & Manuel Voelkle, 2014. "Do missing values exist? Incomplete data handling in cross-national longitudinal studies by means of continuous time modeling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3271-3288, November.
    3. Liat Ayalon, 2018. "Perceived Age Discrimination: A Precipitator or a Consequence of Depressive Symptoms?," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 73(5), pages 860-869.
    4. Steven Andrew Culpepper & Herman Aguinis & Justin L. Kern & Roger Millsap, 2019. "High-Stakes Testing Case Study: A Latent Variable Approach for Assessing Measurement and Prediction Invariance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(1), pages 285-309, March.
    5. Ihsana Sabriani Borualogo & Ferran Casas, 2023. "Bullying Victimisation and Children’s Subjective Well-being: A Comparative Study in Seven Asian Countries," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, February.
    6. Anne-Catherine Guio & David Gordon & Eric Marlier & Hector Najera & Marco Pomati, 2018. "Towards an EU measure of child deprivation," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(3), pages 835-860, June.
    7. Wilson, Christopher J. & Bowden, Stephen C. & Byrne, Linda K. & Joshua, Nicole R. & Marx, Wolfgang & Weiss, Lawrence G., 2023. "The cross-cultural generalizability of cognitive ability measures: A systematic literature review," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    8. Gaetano Martino & Giulia Giacchè & Enrica Rossetti, 2016. "Organizing the Co-Production of Health and Environmental Values in Food Production: The Constitutional Processes in the Relationships between Italian Solidarity Purchasing Groups and Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Samuel Mayanja & Joseph M. Ntayi & John C. Munene & Waswa Balunywa & James R. K. Kagaari, 2021. "Informational differences and entrepreneurial networking among small and medium enterprises in Uganda," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 11(1), pages 563-577, December.
    10. Janina Isabel Steinert & Lucie Dale Cluver & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Sebastian Vollmer, 2018. "One Size Fits All? The Validity of a Composite Poverty Index Across Urban and Rural Households in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 51-72, February.
    11. Sai-fu Fung & Esther Oi-wah Chow & Chau-kiu Cheung, 2020. "Development and Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of a Brief Wisdom Development Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-14, April.
    12. Paul MUKUCHA & Divaries Cosmas JARAVAZA & Forbes MAKUDZA, 2022. "Towards Gender-Based Market Segmentation: The Differential Influence of Gender on Dining Experiences in the University Cafeteria Industry," Management and Economics Review, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 7(2), pages 182-200, June.
    13. Ankica Kosic & Tamara Džamonja Ignjatović & Nebojša Petrović, 2021. "A Cross-Cultural Study of Distress during COVID-19 Pandemic: Some Protective and Risk Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Amber Mosewich & Valerie Hadd & Peter Crocker & Bruno Zumbo, 2013. "Invariance Testing of the SF-36 Health Survey in Women Breast Cancer Survivors: Do Personal and Cancer-related Variables Influence the Meaning of Quality of Life Items?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 559-577, January.
    15. Allyson S. Graf & Meagan A. Ramsey & Julie Hicks Patrick & Amy L. Gentzler, 2016. "Dark Storm Clouds and Rays of Sunshine: Profiles of Negative and Positive Rumination About Daily Hassles and Uplifts," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 2257-2276, December.
    16. Sam S. S. Lau & Cherry C. Y. Ho & Rebecca C. K. Pang & Susan Su & Heather Kwok & Sai-fu Fung & Roger C. Ho, 2022. "COVID-19 Burnout Subject to the Dynamic Zero-COVID Policy in Hong Kong: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the COVID-19 Burnout Frequency Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Carmen León-Mantero & José Carlos Casas-Rosal & Alexander Maz-Machado & Miguel E Villarraga Rico, 2020. "Analysis of attitudinal components towards statistics among students from different academic degrees," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, January.
    18. Hofmans, J. & Pepermans, R. & Loix, E., 2009. "Measurement invariance matters: A case made for the ORTOFIN," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 667-674, August.
    19. Naiara Escalante Mateos & Eider Goñi Palacios & Arantza Fernández-Zabala & Iratxe Antonio-Agirre, 2020. "Internal Structure, Reliability and Invariance across Gender Using the Multidimensional School Climate Scale PACE-33," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-24, July.
    20. Beatriz Talavera-Velasco & Lourdes Luceño-Moreno & Jesús Martín García & Daniel Vázquez-Estévez, 2018. "DECORE-21: Assessment of occupational stress in police. Confirmatory factor analysis of the original model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-11, October.

    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:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:5-6:p:e1179-e1188. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.