IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i9-10p1891-1900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability and criterion‐related validity testing (construct) of the Endotracheal Suction Assessment Tool (ESAT©)

Author

Listed:
  • Kylie Davies
  • Max K. Bulsara
  • Anne‐Sylvie Ramelet
  • Leanne Monterosso

Abstract

Aims and objectives To establish criterion‐related construct validity and test–retest reliability for the Endotracheal Suction Assessment Tool© (ESAT©). Background Endotracheal tube suction performed in children can significantly affect clinical stability. Previously identified clinical indicators for endotracheal tube suction were used as criteria when designing the ESAT©. Content validity was reported previously. The final stages of psychometric testing are presented. Design Observational testing was used to measure construct validity and determine whether the ESAT© could guide “inexperienced” paediatric intensive care nurses’ decision‐making regarding endotracheal tube suction. Test–retest reliability of the ESAT© was performed at two time points. Methods The researchers and paediatric intensive care nurse “experts” developed 10 hypothetical clinical scenarios with predetermined endotracheal tube suction outcomes. “Experienced” (n = 12) and “inexperienced” (n = 14) paediatric intensive care nurses were presented with the scenarios and the ESAT© guiding decision‐making about whether to perform endotracheal tube suction for each scenario. Outcomes were compared with those predetermined by the “experts” (n = 9). Test–retest reliability of the ESAT© was measured at two consecutive time points (4 weeks apart) with “experienced” and “inexperienced” paediatric intensive care nurses using the same scenarios and tool to guide decision‐making. Results No differences were observed between endotracheal tube suction decisions made by “experts” (n = 9), “inexperienced” (n = 14) and “experienced” (n = 12) nurses confirming the tool's construct validity. No differences were observed between groups for endotracheal tube suction decisions at T1 and T2. Conclusion Criterion‐related construct validity and test–retest reliability of the ESAT© were demonstrated. Further testing is recommended to confirm reliability in the clinical setting with the “inexperienced” nurse to guide decision‐making related to endotracheal tube suction. Relevance to clinical practice The ESAT© is the first validated tool to systematically guide endotracheal nursing practice for the “inexperienced” nurse.

Suggested Citation

  • Kylie Davies & Max K. Bulsara & Anne‐Sylvie Ramelet & Leanne Monterosso, 2018. "Reliability and criterion‐related validity testing (construct) of the Endotracheal Suction Assessment Tool (ESAT©)," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 1891-1900, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1891-1900
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14269
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14269?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. J. Scott Long & Jeremy Freese, 2006. "Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables using Stata, 2nd Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, edition 2, number long2, March.
    2. Mark A Burgman & Marissa McBride & Raquel Ashton & Andrew Speirs-Bridge & Louisa Flander & Bonnie Wintle & Fiona Fidler & Libby Rumpff & Charles Twardy, 2011. "Expert Status and Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-7, July.
    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. Jinsuk Yang & Qing Hao & Mahmut Yaşar, 2023. "Institutional investors and cross‐border mergers and acquisitions: The 2000–2018 period," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 553-583, September.
    2. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    3. Clara Berridge & Yuanjin Zhou & Julie M. Robillard & Jeffrey Kaye, 2023. "AI Companion Robot Data Sharing: Preferences of an Online Cohort and Policy Implications," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(3), pages 19-54, June.
    4. Dixon, Huw D. & Grimme, Christian, 2022. "State-dependent or time-dependent pricing? New evidence from a monthly firm-level survey: 1980–2017," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    5. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    6. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    7. Miriam Marcén & Marina Morales, 2019. "Live together: does culture matter?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 671-713, June.
    8. Bruno Amable, 2009. "The Differentiation of Social Demands in Europe. The Social Basis of the European Models of Capitalism," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 391-426, May.
    9. Altorjai, Szilvia, 2013. "Over-qualification of immigrants in the UK," ISER Working Paper Series 2013-11, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    10. Michelsen, Carl Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Switching from fossil fuel to renewables in residential heating systems: An empirical study of homeowners' decisions in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 95-105.
    11. Rolando Rubilar-Torrealba & Karime Chahuán-Jiménez & Hanns de la Fuente-Mella & Mercedes Marzo-Navarro, 2022. "Econometric Modeling to Measure the Social and Economic Factors in the Success of Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    12. Susanne Meyer & Javier Revilla Diez, 2015. "One country, two systems: How regional institutions shape governance modes in the greater Pearl River Delta, China," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(4), pages 891-900, November.
    13. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Wang, Jian, 2014. "How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 175-180.
    14. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    15. Kelly Sharp & Hisham Zerriffi & Philippe Billon, 2020. "Land scarcity, resettlement and food security: Assessing the effect of voluntary resettlement on diet quality in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(1), pages 191-205, February.
    16. Charlie Tchinda & Marcus Dejardin, 2021. "Are Business Policy Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Be Equally Valued? An Exploration According to SMEs Owners’ Business Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-42, October.
    17. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    18. Carlos García-Serrano & Virginia Hernanz & Luis Toharia, 2010. "Mind the Gap, Please! The Effect of Temporary Help Agencies on the Consequences of Work Accidents," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 162-182, June.
    19. Lee, Richard J. & Sener, Ipek N. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Handy, Susan L., 2017. "Relationships between the online and in-store shopping frequency of Davis, California residents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 40-52.
    20. Caudill, Jonathan W. & Getty, Ryan & Smith, Rick & Patten, Ryan & Trulson, Chad R., 2013. "Discouraging window breakers: The lagged effects of police activity on crime," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 18-23.

    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:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1891-1900. 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.