Escala de Toma de Decisión Clínica (CDMNS-PT<sup>©)</sup> en estudiantes de enfermería: traducción y validación

Duarte, Hugo Miguel Santos; Dixe, Maria dos Anjos Coelho Rodrigues

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Rev. Bras. Enferm. 74 (suppl 6) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2021-0032 copiar

Escala de Toma de Decisión Clínica (CDMNS-PT^©) en estudiantes de enfermería: traducción y validación

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMEN

Objetivo:

validar para la población portuguesa la Clinical Decision-Making Nursing Scale_© (CDMNS^©).

Métodos:

este estudio metodológico envolvió 496 estudiantes de Enfermería que rellenaron una encuesta constituida por datos sociodemográficos y académicos y la escala de evaluación de la toma de decisión en Enfermería.

Resultados:

el análisis factorial confirmatorio evidenció una buena calidad de ajustamiento de la estructura factorial, compuesta por tres factores (X²/gl = 2,056; GFI = 0,927; CFI = 0,917; RMSEA = 0,046; RMR = 0,039; SRMR = 0,050). La determinación de la fidelidad de la escala exigió que se quedara constituida por 23 ítems, con valores de correlación a variar entre 0,184 y 0,610 y un valor global de alfa de Cronbach de 0,851, demostrando una buena fiabilidad.

Conclusiones:

la CDMNS-PT^© es válida y fiable, demostrando un elevado potencial para su utilización en la práctica clínica y en la investigación.

Descriptores:
Educación en Enfermería; Estudiantes de Enfermería; Estudio de Validez; Toma de Decisión; Traducción

Responses	Year of licensing			Clinical teaching		Health care practices
Responses	2^nd year	3^rd year	4^th year	Yes	No	Yes	No
Number of students (n)	387	68	41	209	287	64	432
Percentage of students (%)	78	13.7	8.3	42.1	57.9	12.9	87.1

Item description		M	SD	r Corrected	Cronbach's Alpha
1	The situational factors at the time of a clinical decision (...)	4.05	0.749	0.358	0.847
2	I go out of my way to get as much information as (...)	4.41	0.664	0.516	0.842
3	I assist patients/ clients in excising their rights to make (...)	4.50	0.679	0.565	0.841
4	When my values conflict with those (...)	3.88	0.895	0.376	0.846
5	I listen or consider expert advice or (...)	4.34	0.707	0.522	0.842
6	I consider the future welfare of the family of the (...)	4.23	0.795	0.488	0.842
7	I make a mental list of options before making (...)	3.97	0.834	0.421	0.845
8	When examining consequences of options I might (...)	4.18	0.716	0.567	0.840
9	I consider consequence before making a choice (...)	3.75	0.925	0.435	0.844
10	Consensus or agreement among my peer group is (...)	4.31	0.726	0.547	0.841
11	I include patients/ clients as sources of information.	4.38	0.745	0.559	0.840
12	I consider what my peers will say when (...)	4.04	0.775	0.433	0.844
13	My past experiences have little to do with (...)	3.94	1.073	0.245	0.853
14	When examining consequences of options I might (...)	4.21	0.704	0.570	0.841
15	I select options that I have used successfully in (...)	3.88	0.711	0.370	0.846
16	I write out a list of positive and negative consequences (...)	3.37	1.130	0.325	0.850
17	I do not ask my peers to suggest options for my (...)	4.10	0.974	0.330	0.848
18	My professional values are inconsistent with (...)	3.96	1.057	0.254	0.852
19	My finding of alternatives to help with my decision (...)	4.39	0.839	0.475	0.843
20	The risks of and benefits for the patient/ client, are the (...)	4.33	0.986	0.406	0.845
21	When I have a clinical decision to make (...)	3.93	0.857	0.453	0.843
22	Finding out about the patient/ client's objectives is a (...)	4.19	0.786	0.610	0.838
23	I examine the risks and benefits only for consequences (...)	3.78	1.283	0.184	0.859
CDMNS-PT^©					0.851

Item description		Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
1	The situational factors at the time of a clinical decision (...)	0.521
3	I assist patients/clients in excising their rights to make (...)	0.547
4	When my values conflict with those (...)	0.539
5	I listen or consider expert advice or (...)	0.695
6	I consider the future welfare of the family of the (...)	0.341
10	Consensus or agreement among my peer group is (...)	0.614
11	I include patients/ clients as sources of information.	0.539
12	I consider what my peers will say when (...)	0.676
14	When examining consequences of options I might (...)	0.442
15	I select options that I have used successfully in (...)	0.522
21	When I have a clinical decision to make (...)	0.400
22	Finding out about the patient/ client's objectives is a (...)	0.456
2	I go out of my way to get as much information as (...)		0.477
7	I make a mental list of options before making (...)		0.690
8	When examining consequences of options I might (...)		0.729
9	I consider consequence before making a choice (...)		0.706
16	I write out a list of positive and negative consequences (...)		0.639
13	My past experiences have little to do with (...)			0.555
17	I do not ask my peers to suggest options for my (...)			0.516
18	My professional values are inconsistent with (...)			0.587
19	My finding of alternatives to help with my decision (...)			0.622
20	The risks of and benefits for the patient/ client, are the (...)			0.693
23	I examine the risks and benefits only for consequences (...)			0.636

Model	X²/gl	GFI	CFI	RMSEA	RMR	SRMR
Initial model	2.403	0.895	0.858	0.053	0.046	0.057
Model with modification indexes	2.056	0.927	0.917	0.046	0.039	0.050
Final model	2.056	0.927	0.917	0.046	0.039	0.050

Factors	CR	MEV	DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY
Factors	CR	MEV	F1 vs. F2	F1 vs. F3	F2 vs. F3
Factor 1 - Definition of the Problem and Development of the Objectives	0.841	0.312	0.640
Factor 2 - Search and Data Processing	0.751	0.383		0.270
Factor 3 - Evaluation of Alternatives, Planning, and Implementation of Action	0.600	0.238			0.108
Global factor - CDMNS-PT^©	0.911	0.315

Associação Brasileira de Enfermagem SGA Norte Quadra 603 Conj. "B" - Av. L2 Norte 70830-102 Brasília, DF, Brasil, Tel.: (55 61) 3226-0653, Fax: (55 61) 3225-4473 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: reben@abennacional.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author: Hugo Miguel Santos Duarte E-mail: hugo.s.duarte@ipleiria.pt

Brasil

Brasil

Escala de Toma de Decisión Clínica (CDMNS-PT©) en estudiantes de enfermería: traducción y validación

RESUMEN

Objetivo:

Métodos:

Resultados:

Conclusiones:

Escala de Toma de Decisión Clínica (CDMNS-PT^©) en estudiantes de enfermería: traducción y validación