IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v3y1994i3p183-203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of Concepts for Selected Nursing Diagnoses

Author

Listed:
  • Betty L. Chang

    (University of California, Los Angeles)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which defining characteristics found in selected patients cluster to form a nursing diagnostic response/label or define a concept, and to determine the construct validity of the defining characteristics for Self-Care Deficit Impaired Mobility, and Pain. The sample included 309 medical-surgical patients who were found to have the diagnostic responses of interest. he signs and symptoms of the 309 patients were submitted to cluster analysis. Scores on the clusters were examined for their ability to differentiate between two known groups of patients: those identified by clinical nurse specialists (CNS) as having, or not having, selected diagnostic responses/labels. The cluster score Self-Care Deficit differentiated between patients with and without the CNS-diagnostic response of Self-Care Deficit and Pain. Patients with CNS-diagnosis of Self-Care Deficit and Impaired Mobility scored high in the Impaired Mobility Cluster score. Limitations of the study, clinical relevance, and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Betty L. Chang, 1994. "Validity of Concepts for Selected Nursing Diagnoses," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 3(3), pages 183-203, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:3:y:1994:i:3:p:183-203
    DOI: 10.1177/105477389400300302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/105477389400300302
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/105477389400300302?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:sae:clnure:v:3:y:1994:i:3:p:183-203. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.