Psychometric evaluation of the attitudes toward handheld decision support software scale in a sample of nursing students

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 251-255

  Schnall, Rebecca ^a   Velez, Olivia ^a   John, Rita Marie ^a   Bakken, Suzanne ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer attitudes; Handheld devices; Psychometric evaluation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; NURSING STUDENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; HUMANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; SOFTWARE; STUDENTS, NURSING;

EID: 79955596179     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181f9dc1d     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Stroud S, Erkel E, Smith C. The use of personal digital assistants by nurse practitioner students and faculty. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2005;17(2):67-75.
2. Barrett JR, Strayer SM, Schubart JR. Assessing medical residents' usage and perceived needs for personal digital assistants. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(1):25-34. (Pubitemid 38229185)
3. Rothschild JM, Lee TH, Bae T, Bates DW. Clinician use of a palmtop drug reference guide. 2002;9(3):223-229.
4. Shneyder Y. Personal digital assistants (PDA) for the nurse practitioner. J Pediatr Health Care. 2002;16(6):317-320. (Pubitemid 40433611)
5. Farrell MJ, Rose L. Use of mobile handheld computers in clinical nursing education. J Nurs Educ. 2008;47(1):13-19.
6. Dishaw M, Strong D. Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Inform Manage. 2006;36(1):9-21.
7. Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Machine Stud. 1993;38(3):475-487.
8. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425-478.
9. Goodhue DL, Thompson RL. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q. 1995;19(2):213-236.
10. Venkatesh V, Speier C, Morris MG. User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decis Sci. 2002;33(2):297-316.
11. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci. 1989;35(8):982-1003.
12. Davis FD, Venkatesh V. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int J Hum Comp Stud. 1996;45(1):19-45. (Pubitemid 126359963)
13. Adams DA, Nelson RR, Todd PA. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Q. 1992;16(2):227-247.
14. Mathieson K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Inform Syst Res. 1991;2:173-191.
15. Hendrickson AR, Massey PD, Gronan TP. On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Q. 1993;17:227-230.
16. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):318-340.
17. Wilson EV, Lankton NK. Modeling patients' acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(4):241-248. (Pubitemid 38887143)
18. Segars AH, Grover V. Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Q. 2001;17(4):517-525.
19. Venkatesh V, Davis FA. Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci. 2000;46(2):186-204. (Pubitemid 30594361)
20. Bakken S, Duffy ME. Development and psychometric evaluation of the impact of Health Information Technology (I-HIT) Scale. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(4):507-514. (Pubitemid 46963037)
21. Ray M, Houston T, Yu F, et al. Development and testing of a scale to assess physician attitudes about handheld computers with decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:567-572. (Pubitemid 44292027)
22. Schnall R. Wireless Informatics for Safe and Evidence-based (WISE) APN Care. Poster presented at HRSA Bureau of Health Professions All Grantee Meeting, Washington, DC, February 25-27, 2008.
23. Currie LM, Desjardins KS, Stone PW, et al. Near-miss and hazard reporting: promoting mindfulness in patient safety education. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(pt 1):285-290.
24. Knapp TR, Brown JK. Ten measurement commandments that often should be broken. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18(5):465-469.
25. Hutcheson G, Sofroniou N. The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.
26. Waltz C, Strickland O, Lenz E. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company; 2004.
27. Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. Vol 2. Prentice-Hall; Upper Saddle River, NJ; 2000.
28. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(3):193-205.