4.3 Article

Reliability and validity of an indicator system used to evaluate outpatient and inpatient satisfaction in Chinese hospitals

Journal

PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages 2527-2536

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S186722

Keywords

patient satisfaction questionnaire; reliability; validity; evaluation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and aims: Patient satisfaction is one of the important ways to measure the results of treatment and the quality of medical services. The purpose of the present study was to verify the reliability and validity of the indicator system for evaluating satisfaction of outpatients and inpatients in Chinese hospitals. Methods: The study was based on the satisfaction questionnaire program of the national doctor-patient experience research center with data from 99,802 outpatients and 229,215 inpatients, collected in China between 2016 and 2017. We adopted exploratory factor analysis for validity analysis and the method of split-half reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficient for reliability analysis. Results: In the validity analysis of the indicator system for outpatients, the factor loading was between 0.438 and 0.919, and the reliability was excellent. In the validity analysis of the indicator system for nonsurgical inpatients, the factor loading of the secondary indicators was between 0.417 and 0.75, and the reliability was excellent. In the validity analysis of the indicator system for surgical inpatients satisfaction, the factor loading of the secondary indicators range was 0.391-0.751, and the reliability was excellent. Conclusion: The indicator systems for evaluating satisfaction of outpatients, surgical inpatients and nonsurgical inpatients all have excellent reliability and good validity. They can be widely used for an outpatient and inpatient satisfaction questionnaire in Chinese hospitals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available