4.5 Article

Development and Validation of the CVP Score: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11111543

关键词

central venous pressure; intensive care units; questionnaire; reliability; validity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a new questionnaire called CVP Score to assess how ICU nurses use CVP measurements in their decision-making process. The questionnaire was found to have acceptable construct validity and excellent reliability. The CVP Score is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring how critical care nurses use CVP measurements in their decision-making process.
Although central venous pressure (CVP) is among the most frequent estimated hemodynamic parameters in the critically ill setting, extremely little is known on how intensive care unit (ICU) nurses use this index in their decision-making process. The purpose of the study was to develop a new questionnaire for accessing how ICU nurses use CVP measurements to address patients' hemodynamics investigating its validity and reliability. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 120 ICU nurses from four ICUs of Greece. Based on a comprehensive literature review and the evaluation by a panel of five experts, a new questionnaire, named CVP Score, was created, having eight items. The construct validity and the reliability of the questionnaire were examined. Half of the study participants (51.7%) worked at a specialized ICU, and they had a mean [+/- Standard Deviation (SD)] ICU experience of 13(+/- 7.1) years. The estimated construct validity of the newly developed tool was acceptable, while the internal consistency reliability as measured by Cronbach alpha was excellent (0.901). CVP Score had acceptable test-retest reliability (r = 0.996, p < 0.001) and split-half reliability (0.855). The CVP score is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring how critical care nurses use CVP measurements in their decision-making process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据