4.2 Article

The development and testing of the Person-centred Practice Inventory - Staff (PCPI-S)

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 541-547

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx066

Keywords

person-centred; instrument design; psychometrics; Delphi technique; factor analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the study was to develop and test an instrument, underpinned by a recognized theoretical framework, that examines how staff perceive person-centred practice, using proven methods of instrument design and psychometric analysis. The study used a mixed method multiphase research design involving: two Delphi studies to agree definitions and items to measure the constructs aligned to the person-centred practice theoretical framework (Phase 1); and a large-scale quantitative cross-sectional survey (Phase 2). Phase 1 was an international study involving representatives from seven countries across Europe and Australia, with Phase 2 conducted in one country across five organizations. Two international panels of experts (n = 33) in person-centred practice took part in the Delphi study and a randomly selected sample of registered nurses (n = 703, 23.8%) drawn from across a wide range of clinical settings completed the Person-centred Practice Inventory - Staff (PCPI-S). The main outcome is to establish a measure of staff perceptions of person-centred Practice. Broad consensus on definitions relating to 17 constructs drawn from a person-centred practice framework was achieved after two rounds; likewise with the generation of 108 items to measure the constructs; a final instrument comprising 59 items with proven psychometric properties was achieved. The PCPI-S is psychometrically acceptable instrument validated by an international expert panel that maps specifically to a theoretical framework for person-centred practice and provides a generic measure of person-centredness.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available