IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0127405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability and Validity of the Alberta Context Tool (ACT) with Professional Nurses: Findings from a Multi-Study Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Janet E Squires
  • Leslie Hayduk
  • Alison M Hutchinson
  • Ranjeeta Mallick
  • Peter G Norton
  • Greta G Cummings
  • Carole A Estabrooks

Abstract

Although organizational context is central to evidence-based practice, underdeveloped measurement hindersitsassessment. The Alberta Context Tool, comprised of 59 items that tap10 modifiable contextual concepts, was developed to address this gap. The purpose of this study to examine the reliability and validity of scores obtained when the Alberta Context Tool is completed by professional nurses across different healthcare settings. Five separate studies (N = 2361 nurses across different care settings) comprised the study sample. Reliability and validity were assessed. Cronbach’s alpha exceeded 0.70 for9/10 Alberta Context Tool concepts. Item-total correlations exceeded acceptable standards for 56/59items. Confirmatory Factor Analysescoordinated acceptably with the Alberta Context Tool’s proposed latent structure. The mean values for each Alberta Context Tool concept increased from low to high levels of research utilization(as hypothesized) further supporting its validity. This study provides robust evidence forreliability and validity of scores obtained with the Alberta Context Tool when administered to professional nurses.

Suggested Citation

  • Janet E Squires & Leslie Hayduk & Alison M Hutchinson & Ranjeeta Mallick & Peter G Norton & Greta G Cummings & Carole A Estabrooks, 2015. "Reliability and Validity of the Alberta Context Tool (ACT) with Professional Nurses: Findings from a Multi-Study Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127405
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127405
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127405&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0127405?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0127405. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.