IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validating the Alberta Context Tool in a multi-site Australian Emergency Department nurse population

Author

Listed:
  • Verena Schadewaldt
  • Benjamin McElduff
  • Catherine D’Este
  • Elizabeth McInnes
  • Simeon Dale
  • Anoja Gunaratne
  • Janet Squires
  • Dominique A Cadilhac
  • Sandy Middleton

Abstract

The organisational context of healthcare settings has an essential role in how research evidence is used in clinical practice. The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) measures 10 concepts of organisational context with higher scores indicating a more positive work environment and potentially better use of research evidence in patient care. We assessed the psychometric properties of the ACT in Emergency Departments (EDs). This validation study was conducted as part of a multi-centre trial of triage, treatment and transfer (T3 Trial) of patients with stroke admitted to EDs. Stratified sampling with proportional allocation was used to recruit ED nurses from 26 participating hospitals at baseline. Nurses completed a survey containing the ACT. Structural validity was investigated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients. Item-rest correlations and the average inter-item correlations were also assessed. 558 ED nurses completed the survey, comprised of 433 surveys without missing data. Our exploratory factor analysis produced a 14-factor structure, explaining 62% of variance of organisational context. For eight of ten concepts, item loadings matched the factor structure of the original ACT. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 10 ACT concepts showed moderate model fit (p = 0.001, root mean square error of approximation: 0.049, standardised root mean squared residual: 0.048). Cronbach’s alphas showed very good internal consistency for nine of ten ACT concepts (α>0.7; 0.45–0.90). Item-rest correlations indicated that most ACT items (50 of 56 items) within any concept related well to the total score of the concept. Average inter-item correlations indicated potential redundant items for three concepts (feedback processes, leadership, staffing) that were above the threshold of 0.5. While identifying a few shortcomings for some ACT concepts in an ED context, the majority of findings confirm reliability and validity of the original ACT in an Australian population of ED nurses.

Suggested Citation

  • Verena Schadewaldt & Benjamin McElduff & Catherine D’Este & Elizabeth McInnes & Simeon Dale & Anoja Gunaratne & Janet Squires & Dominique A Cadilhac & Sandy Middleton, 2019. "Validating the Alberta Context Tool in a multi-site Australian Emergency Department nurse population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215153
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215153
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215153&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215153?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. Jennifer A Knopp‐Sihota & Linda Niehaus & Janet E Squires & Peter G Norton & Carole A Estabrooks, 2015. "Factors associated with rushed and missed resident care in western Canadian nursing homes: a cross‐sectional survey of health care aides," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2815-2825, October.
    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.

      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:pone00:0215153. 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: 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.