IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i3-4p560-570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construct validity and reliability of the Handover Evaluation Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Beverly O'Connell
  • Cherene Ockerby
  • Mary Hawkins

Abstract

Aims and objectives To examine the psychometric properties of the Handover Evaluation Scale using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Background Handover is a fundamental component of clinical practice and is essential to ensure safe patient care. Research indicates a number of problems with this process, with high variability in the type of information provided. Despite the reported deficits with handover practices internationally, guidelines and standardised tools for its conduct and evaluation are scarce. Further work is required to develop an instrument that measures the effectiveness of handover in a valid and reliable way. Design Secondary analysis of data collected between 2006–2008 from nurses working on 24 wards across a large Australian healthcare service. Methods A sample of 299 nurses completed the survey that included 20 self‐report items which evaluated the effectiveness of handover. Data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported by structural equation modelling. Results Analyses resulted in a 14‐item Handover Evaluation Scale with three subscales: (1) quality of information (six items), (2) interaction and support (five items) and (3) efficiency (three items). A fourth subscale, patient involvement (three items), was removed from the scale as it was not a good measure of handover. Conclusions The scale is a self‐report, valid and reliable measure of the handover process. It provides a useful tool for monitoring and evaluating handover processes in health organisations, and it is recommended for use and further development. Relevance to clinical practice Monitoring handover is an important quality assurance process that is required to meet healthcare standards. This reliable and valid scale can be used in practice to monitor the quality of handover and provide information that can form the basis of education and training packages and guidelines to improve handover policies and processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Beverly O'Connell & Cherene Ockerby & Mary Hawkins, 2014. "Construct validity and reliability of the Handover Evaluation Scale," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3-4), pages 560-570, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:3-4:p:560-570
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12189
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12189?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. Jenelle Matic & Patricia M Davidson & Yenna Salamonson, 2011. "Review: bringing patient safety to the forefront through structured computerisation during clinical handover," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1‐2), pages 184-189, January.
    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. Jian‐Guo Yang & Jun Zhang, 2016. "Improving the postoperative handover process in the intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(7-8), pages 1062-1072, April.
    2. Mary F. Forde & Alice Coffey & Josephine Hegarty, 2020. "Bedside handover at the change of nursing shift: A mixed‐methods study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3731-3742, October.

    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. Jian‐Guo Yang & Jun Zhang, 2016. "Improving the postoperative handover process in the intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(7-8), pages 1062-1072, April.
    2. Maree Johnson & Paula Sanchez & Catherine Zheng, 2016. "The impact of an integrated nursing handover system on nurses' satisfaction and work practices," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1-2), pages 257-268, January.
    3. Merete Lyngstad & Anders Grimsmo & Dag Hofoss & Ragnhild Hellesø, 2014. "Home care nurses' experiences with using electronic messaging in their communication with general practitioners," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(23-24), pages 3424-3433, December.
    4. Katherine M Ernst & Sara A McComb & Cathaleen Ley, 2018. "Nurse‐to‐nurse shift handoffs on medical–surgical units: A process within the flow of nursing care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1189-1201, March.
    5. Kristina Eivergård & Ingela Enmarker & Mona Livholts & Lena Aléx & Ove Hellzén, 2020. "Subordinated masculinities: A critical inquiry into reproduction of gender norms in handovers and rounds in a forensic psychiatric care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4227-4238, November.

    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:23:y:2014:i:3-4:p:560-570. 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.