4.1 Article

A new scale informed by the Reciprocal-Engagement Model for quality evaluation of genetic counselling by patients: Development and initial validation

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
Volume 64, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2021.104375

Keywords

Genetic counselling; Patient participation; Healthcare quality assessment; Genetics services; Psychometric validation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed and initially validated a novel scale for evaluating the quality of genetic counselling, which consists of seven factors explaining 59% of the variance. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.85) and the factors showed significant and moderate interrelatedness (ranging from r = 0.31 to r = 0.71).
Monitoring the quality of genetic counselling is essential to ensure appropriate provision. This study describes the development and initial psychometric validation of a novel scale for genetic counselling quality evaluation by patients. A deductive approach was taken to formulate scale items. Exploratory factor analysis with the principal axis factoring method was used to assess the scale's factor structure (n = 118). Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was also examined. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a single overarching construct consisting of seven factors, which account for 59% of the variance explained. Items showed, in general, strong factor loadings (>0.5). Some items focused on patient satisfaction with services provision did not load onto the factors. Thus, another factor analysis was performed with these items, which resulted in one-factor. The identified factor accounted for 57% of variance explained, and communalities were strong (>= 0.5) for most items. Cronbach's alpha score for the scale was 0.85, indicating high internal consistency. Factors were significantly and moderately interrelated (from r = 0.31 to r = 0.71). Further studies are needed to establish the psychometric validity of the scale.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available