IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v22y2020i4p903-912.html

Two versions of perspectives on caring for older patients scale: Translation and psychometric testing among Chinese nursing students

Author

Listed:
  • Hui‐Lin Cheng
  • Xian‐Liang Liu
  • Rui‐Xue Bi
  • Lan‐Fang Liu
  • Simon Ching Lam

Abstract

This study aimed to translate the Perspectives on Caring for Older Patients scale into Chinese, both the full and the shortened versions, and test its psychometric properties among Chinese nursing students. In this methodological research, the scale were translated and administered to 307 nursing students recruited from two universities in mainland China. The psychometric testing mainly included internal consistency reliability using Cronbachʼs alphas, 2‐week test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient, convergent validity with Koganʼs Attitude toward Older People scale, and factorial validity using exploratory factor analysis. Cronbachʼs alphas for the full and the shortened version scales were 0.77 and 0.75, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient values of both versions exceeded 0.70 and their scores were moderately correlated with the Koganʼs Attitude toward Older People scaleʼs scores. While exploratory factor analyses revealed a six‐factor structure for the full version with factor loadings of five items below 0.3, the shortened version identified two factors with all factor loadings above 0.3. This study concluded that the psychometric properties of the full version scale were adequate and similar to those of the shortened version except for factorial validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui‐Lin Cheng & Xian‐Liang Liu & Rui‐Xue Bi & Lan‐Fang Liu & Simon Ching Lam, 2020. "Two versions of perspectives on caring for older patients scale: Translation and psychometric testing among Chinese nursing students," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 903-912, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:22:y:2020:i:4:p:903-912
    DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12745
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/nhs.12745?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. Kathy L Rush & Stormee Hickey & Sheila Epp & Robert Janke, 2017. "Nurses' attitudes towards older people care: An integrative review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4105-4116, December.
    2. Whitehead, Lisa Claire, 2007. "Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 782-791, August.
    3. Mohammad Rababa & Ammar M. Hammouri & Issa M. Hweidi & Julie L. Ellis, 2020. "Association of nurses' level of knowledge and attitudes to ageism toward older adults: Cross‐sectional study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 593-601, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jiyeon Ha & Juah Kim, 2021. "Ageism and the Factors Affecting Ageism among Korean Nursing Students: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Paul Alhassan Issahaku & Alhassan Sulemana, 2021. "Older Adults’ Expectations and Experiences With Health care Professionals in Ghana," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, August.
    3. Hiba Bawadi & Sara Elshami & Ahmed Awaisu & Ghadir Fakhri Al-Jayyousi & Shuja Ashfaq & Banan Mukhalalati, 2023. "A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Mohammad Rababa & Ammar M. Hammouri & Issa M. Hweidi & Julie L. Ellis, 2020. "Association of nurses' level of knowledge and attitudes to ageism toward older adults: Cross‐sectional study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 593-601, September.
    5. Eun Hee Hwang & Kon Hee Kim, 2021. "Quality of Gerontological Nursing and Ageism: What Factors Influence on Nurses’ Ageism in South Korea?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-13, April.
    6. Marta Podhorecka & Anna Pyszora & Agnieszka Woźniewicz & Jakub Husejko & Kornelia Kędziora-Kornatowska, 2022. "Empathy as a Factor Conditioning Attitudes towards the Elderly among Physiotherapists—Results from Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-11, March.
    7. María del Carmen Giménez‐Espert & Vicente Javier Prado‐Gascó, 2018. "The role of empathy and emotional intelligence in nurses’ communication attitudes using regression models and fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis models," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(13-14), pages 2661-2672, July.
    8. Wenqing Gao & Shuailong Li & Zhuoyuan Chi & Fangfang Gong & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Transition from Nurses to Medicalized Elderly Caregivers: Comparison on Willingness between Traditional and Modern Regions in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-12, May.
    9. Lea Zanbar & Sagit Lev & Yifat Faran, 2022. "Can Physical, Psychological, and Social Vulnerabilities Predict Ageism?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, December.

    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:nuhsci:v:22:y:2020:i:4:p:903-912. 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)1442-2018 .

    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.