IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i17-18p3177-3188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of the pressure ulcer management self‐efficacy scale for nurses

Author

Listed:
  • Federica Dellafiore
  • Cristina Arrigoni
  • Greta Ghizzardi
  • Irene Baroni
  • Gianluca Conte
  • Francesca Turrini
  • Gianluca Castiello
  • Arianna Magon
  • Francesco Pittella
  • Rosario Caruso

Abstract

Background Pressure ulcers (PUs) represent a current issue for healthcare delivery. Nurse self‐efficacy in managing PUs could predict patients’ outcome, being a proxy assessment of their overall competency to managing PUs. However, a valid and reliable scale of this task‐specific self‐efficacy has not yet been developed. Objectives To develop a valid and reliable scale to assess nurses’ self‐efficacy in managing PUs, that is, the pressure ulcer management self‐efficacy scale for nurses (PUM‐SES). Methods This study had a multi‐method and multi‐phase design, where study reporting was supported by the STROBE checklist (File S1). Phase 1 referred to the scale development, consisting in the items’ generation, mainly based on themes emerged from the literature and discussed within a panel of experts. Phase 2 focused on a three‐step validation process: the first step aimed to assess face and content validity of the pool of items previously generated (initial version of the PUM‐SES); the second aimed to assess psychometrics properties through exploratory factorial analysis; the third step assessed construct validity through confirmative factorial analysis, while concurrent validity was evaluated describing the relationships between PUM‐SES and an established general self‐efficacy measurement. Reliability was assessed through the evaluation of stability and internal consistency. Results PUM‐SES showed evidence of face and content validity, adequate construct and concurrent validity, internal consistency and stability. Specifically, PUM‐SES had four domains, labelled as follows: assessment, planning, supervision and decision‐making. These domains were predicted by the same second‐order factor, labelled as PU management self‐efficacy. Conclusion PUM‐SES is a 10‐item scale to measure nurses’ self‐efficacy in PU management. A standardised 0–100 scoring is suggested for computing each domain and the overall scale. PUM‐SES might be used in clinical and educational research. Relevance to clinical practice Optimising nurses’ self‐efficacy in PU management might enhance clinical assessment, determining better outcomes in patients with PUs.

Suggested Citation

  • Federica Dellafiore & Cristina Arrigoni & Greta Ghizzardi & Irene Baroni & Gianluca Conte & Francesca Turrini & Gianluca Castiello & Arianna Magon & Francesco Pittella & Rosario Caruso, 2019. "Development and validation of the pressure ulcer management self‐efficacy scale for nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(17-18), pages 3177-3188, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:17-18:p:3177-3188
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14875
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14875?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. Sharon Andrew & Andrew McVicar & Mandana Zanganeh & Nigel Henderson, 2015. "Self‐efficacy and relevance of bioscience for nursing, midwifery and healthcare students," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2965-2972, 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.
    1. Kari Toverud Jensen & Unni Knutstad & Tonks N. Fawcett, 2018. "The challenge of the biosciences in nurse education: A literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 1793-1802, May.

    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:28:y:2019:i:17-18:p:3177-3188. 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.