Psychometric properties of Q-DIO, an instrument to measure the quality of documented nursing diagnoses, interventions and outcomes;Testtheoretische gütekriterien des q-dio, eines instruments zur messung der qualität der dokumentation von pflegediagnosen, -interventionen und -ergebnissen

Pflege

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 119-128

  Müller Staub, Maria ^a   Lunney, Margaret ^b   Lavin, Mary Ann ^c   Needham, Ian ^d   Odenbreit, Matthias ^e   van Achterberg, Theo ^f  

^a Pflege PBS ^*  (Switzerland)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^c SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NURSING   (United States)

^d Centre of Psychiatry Rheinau   (Switzerland)

^e Burgerspital Solothurn   (Switzerland)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DOCUMENTATION; GERMANY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; METHODOLOGY; NURSING DIAGNOSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOCUMENTATION; GERMANY; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; NURSING DIAGNOSIS; NURSING RECORDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 77951047237     PISSN: 10125302     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/1012-5302/a000024     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Allerbeck, K. R.: Messniveau und Analyseverfahren-Das Problem «strittiger Intervallskalen». Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1978, 7: 199-214.
2. Amelang, M.; Schmidt-Atzert, L.: Psychologische Diagnostik und Intervention. Springer, Heidelberg, 2006.
3. American Nurses Association. (2009). The nursing process: A common thread amongst all nurses. Kansas City: American Nurses Publishing.
4. Björvell, C.; Wredling, R.; Thorell-Ekstrand, I.: Long-term increase in quality of nursing documentation: Effects of a comprehensive intervention. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 2002, 16: 34-42.
5. Bortz, J.: Statistik für Sozialwissen-schaftler. Springer, Berlin, 1999.
6. Bortz, J.: Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer, Heidelberg, 2005.
7. Bortz, J.; Lienert, G. A.: Kurzgefasste Statistik für die klinische Forschung. Springer, Berlin, 1998.
8. Bostick, J. E.; Riggs, C. J.; Rantz, M. J.: Quality measurement in nursing. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 2003, 18: 94-104.
9. Burns, N.; Grove, S. K.: Understanding nursing research. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1995.
10. Cronbach, L. J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. In: Psychometrica (Hrsg.), 1951: 297-334.
11. Currell, R.; Urquhart, C.: Nursing record systems: Effects on nursing practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Review, 2003, 3: CD002099.
12. Curell, R., Urquhart, C., Grant, M. J., & Hardiker, N. R. (2009). Nursing record systems: effects on nursing practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 1, CD002099.
13. Daly, J. M.; Buckwalter, K.; Maas, M.: Written and computerized care plans. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 2002, 28: 14-23.
14. Dobrzyn, J.: Components of written nursing diagnostic statements. Nursing Diagnosis, 1995, 6: 29-36.
15. Dochterman, J.; Bulechek, G. M. (Hrsg.): Nursing Interventions Classification NIC. Mosby, St. Louis, 2004.
16. Doenges, M. E.; Moorhouse, M. F.; Murr, A.C.: Nurse's pocket guide: Diagnoses, prioritized interventions, and rationales. F. A. Davis, Philadelphia, 2008.
17. Dukes, K. A.: Internal consistency. In: Armitage, P.; Colton, T. (Hrsg.): Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Wiley, Chichester, 1998, 1026-1228.
18. Gordon, M.: Nursing diagnoses - State of the art, Pflegediagnostik-klinische Urteilsbildung (1-9). Müller Staub Pflege PBS, Bern, 2004.
19. Hofmann, F.; Schreiner, C.; Thon hauser, J. (Hrsg.): Qualitative und quantitative Aspekte: Zu ihrer Komplementarität in der Erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung. Waxmann, Münster, 2008.
20. Hulley, S. B.; Cummings, S. R.: Designing clinical research. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1988.
21. Institute of Medicine: Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2001.
22. Institute of Medicine: Keeping Patients Safe. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2004.
23. Iyer, P. W.; Taptich, B.J.; Bernocci-Losey, D.: Nursing process and nursing diagnosis. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1995.
24. Johnson, M.; Bulechek, G.; Butcher, H.; McCloskey Dochtermann, J.; Maas, M.; Moorhead, S.; Swanson, E.: NANDA, NOC and NIC linkages: Nursing diagnoses, outcomes, & interventions. Mosby, St. Louis, 2006.
25. Keenan, G., Tschannen, D., & Wesley, M. L. (2008). Standardized nursing terminologies can transform practice. Jona, 38(3), 103-106.
26. Lavin, M. A.: Stages of diffusion of an innovation: Nursing diagnosis classification. In: Nanda (Hrsg.), Paper presented at the NANDA, NIC & NOC Conference (8-9). Chicago, NANDA, 2004.
27. Moorhead, S.; Johnson, M.; Maas, M. L.: Nursing Outcomes Classification. Mosby, St. Louis, 2003.
28. Müller-Staub, M.: Entwicklung eines Instruments zur Messung pflege-diagnostischer Qualität. Printernet, 2003, 5: 21-33.
29. Müller-Staub, M.; Lavin, M. A.; Need-ham, I.; van Achterberg, T.: Nursing diagnoses, interventions and out-comes-Application and impact on nursing practice: A systematic literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2006, 56: 514-531.
30. Müller-Staub, M.; Lavin, M. A.; Need-ham, I.; van Achterberg, T.: Meeting the criteria of a nursing diagnosis classification: Evaluation of ICNP®, ICF, NANDA and ZEFP. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2007, 44: 702-713.
31. Müller-Staub, M.; Lunney, M.; Odenbreit, M.; Needham, I.; Lavin, M. A.; van Achterberg, T.: Development of an instrument to measure the quality of documented nursing diagnoses, interventions and out-comes: the Q-DIO. Journal of Clincal Nursing, 2009, 18: 1027-1037.
32. Müller-Staub, M.; Needham, I.; Lunney, M.; Odenbreit, M.; Lavin, M. A.; van Achterberg, T.: Qualität von Pflegediagnosen, -interventionen und -ergebnissen: Kriterien und Operatio-nalisierung des Messinstruments Q-DIO. Pflege, 2008, 21: 327-338.
33. Müller-Staub, M.; Smoliner, A.; Oden-breit, M.; Widmer, R.; Knoth, S.: Stellungnahme zum Artikel «Er-gebnisse einer quantitativen Da-tenauswertung mittels ENP» in deutschen und österreichischen Einrichtungen». Printernet, 2004, 6: 585-588.
34. NANDA International: Nursing diagnoses: Definitions and classification, 2005-2006. NANDA International, Philadelphia, 2005.
35. NANDA International: History and historical highlights 1973 through 1998. Internetressource, 2006. Abgerufen am 17.07.2007 unter: http://www.nanda.org/index.html.
36. Needham, I.: Kriterien zur Überprüfung von Pflegeplänen. Krankenpflege, 2003, 96: 28.
37. Polit, D. F.; Beck Tatano, C.: Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2005.
38. Polit, D. F.; Hungler, B. P.: Nursing research: Principles and methods. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2003.
39. Saranto, K.; Kinnunen, U. M.: Evaluating nursing documentation-re-search designs and methods: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2009, 65: 464-476.
40. Shoukri, M. M.: Measures of interobserver agreement. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Washington DC, 2004. SPSS: SPSS 11.0, SPSS Inc., 2005.
41. Streiner, D. L.; Norman, G. R.: Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
42. Streiner, L.; Norman, G. R.: Health measurement scales. Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.
43. Waltz, C. F.; Strickland, O. L.; Lenz, E. R.: Measurement in nursing and health care research. Springer, New York, 2005.