Psychometric properties of the persian version of the health professionals education in patient safety survey

Authors

1 Student Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Centre, Department of Adult Health Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Safe care requires acquiring special competencies. Suitable instruments are needed to evaluate such competencies. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Health Professionals Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS). Methods: A methodological study was conducted in 2020, on the students who were spending their last year of study in nursing, medicine, pharmacy, midwifery, surgical technology, and anesthesia, in the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The H-PEPSS was translated into Persian based on the Brislin translation model. Face validity, content validity index (CVI), and content validity ratio (CVR) were examined. The construct validity of the scale was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Cronbach's alpha coefficient and interclass correlation coefficient were also calculated as reliability criteria. Results: The face validity of the Persian translation of H-PEPSS was confirmed by a panel of experts, and the items' impact scores were greater than 1.5. Three items were modified, and the CVI of the scale was calculated at 0.91. Besides, the items' CVR ranged from 0.64 to 1.00. In EFA, six factors were extracted, which shows the competencies the students possessed both in the classroom and clinical setting, which then were confirmed through the CFA. All items had a factor loading value greater than 0.4. Goodness-of-fit indices were obtained: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.064, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.922, and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.931 for the classroom and RMSEA = 0.076, TLI = 0.912, and CFI = 0.923 for clinical setting. The Cronbach's alpha of the scale was 0.936 for the classroom and 0.949 for the clinical setting. Conclusions: The Persian version of H-PEPSS includes six factors with 23 items. This scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing patient safety education in the classroom and clinical setting.

Keywords

References

1.     Ravaghi H, Barati-Marnani A, Hosseini AF, Takbiri A. The
relationship between health care providers’ perceptions of
patient safety culture and patients’ perceptions of medical
errors in teaching hospitals in Tehran. J Health Manag
2012;15:57-68.
2.     World Health Organization. http://www.emro.who.int/entity/
patient-safety/index.html (last access on 06 April 2020).
3.     World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/
campaigns/world-patient-safety-day/2019 (last access on 06 April
2020).
4.     Huang FF, Shen XY, Chen XL, He LP, Huang SF, Li JX. Selfreported confidence in patient safety competencies among chinese
nursing students: A multi-site cross-sectional survey. BMC Med
Educ 2020;20:32.
5.     Vaziri S, Fakouri F, Mirzaei M, Afsharian M, Azizi M,
Arab-Zozani M. Prevalence of medical errors in iran:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv
Res 2019;19:622.
6.     Sadat Z, Aboutalebi MS, Alavi NM. Quality of work life and its
related factors: A survey of nurses. Trauma Monthly 2017;22.
7.     Aghaei Hashjin A, Kringos DS, Manoochehri J, Ravaghi H,
Klazinga NS. Implementation of patient safety and patientcenteredness strategies in iranian hospitals. Plos One
2014;9:e108831.
8.     Babamohamadi H, Nemati RK, Nobahar M, Keighobady S,
Ghazavi S, Izadi-Sabet F, et al. Evaluation of patient safety
indicators in Semnan city hospitals by using the patient
safety friendly hospital initiative (PSFHI). Glob J Health Sci
2016;8:39161.
9.     Najafpoor J, Broomandfar S, Zahiri M. Evaluation of patient
safety indicators in ahvaz poblic hospitals based on World
Health Organization’s patient safety protocol. Health Manag
2014;5:47-58.
10.     Ginsburg L, Castel E, Tregunno D, Norton PG. The H-PEPSS: An
instrumenttomeasure health professionals’perceptions of patientsafety
competence at entry into practice. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:676-84.
11.     Taskiran G, Eskin Bacaksiz F, Harmanci Seren AK. Psychometric
testing of the turkish version of the Health Professional Education
in Patient Safety Survey: H-PEPSSTR. Nurse Educ Pract
2020;42:102640.
12.     Huang FF, Song JH. An assessment of the reliability and factorial
validity of the Chinese Version of the Health Professional
Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS). Front Psychol
2019;10:2183.
13.     Mira JJ, Navarro IM, Guilabert M, Poblete R, Franco AL,
Jimenez P, et al. A Spanish-language patient safety questionnaire
to measure medical and nursing students’ attitudes and knowledge.
Rev Panam Salud Public 2015;38:110-9.
14.     Lee NJ, An JY, Song TM, Jang H, Park SY. Psychometric
evaluation of a patient safety competency self-evaluation tool for
nursing students. J Nurs Educ 2014;53:550-62.
15.     Bressan V, Stevanin S, Bulfone G, Zanini A, Dante A, Palese A.
Measuring patient safety knowledge and competences as perceived
by nursing students: An italian validation study. Nurse Educ Pract
2016;16:209-16.
16.     Bergs J, Peeters K, Kortleven I, Creemers S, Ulenaers D,
Desmedt M, et al. Translation and validation of the dutch version
of the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey
amongst nursing students in Belgium: A psychometric analysis.
Plos One 2021;16:e0247869.
17.     Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross
Cult Psychol 1970;1:185-216.
18.     Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Principles and methods.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
19.     Ebadi A, Zarshenas L, Rakhshan M, Zareiyan A, Sharifnia SH,
Mojahedi M. Fundamentals of scale validation in health sciences.
Tehran: Jame’e negar; 2016.
20.     Lawshe CH. A quantity approach to content validity. Pers Psychol
1975;28:563-75.
21.     Tavsancil E. Measuring Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS.
5th ed. Ankara. Turkey: Nobel Akademi Press; 2014.
22.     Grove SK, Burns N, Gray J. The practice of nursing research:
Appraisal, synthesis and generation of evidence. Elsevier Health
Sciences; 2012.
23.     Shi D, Lee T, Maydeu-Olivares A. Understanding the model size
effect on SEM fit indices. Educ Psychol Meas 2019;79:310-34.
24.     Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to
cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and
asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol 2016;7:769.
25.     Colet PC, Cruz JP, Cruz CP, Al-Otaibi J, Qubeilat H, Alquwez N.
Patient safety competence of nursing students in saudi arabia:
A self-reported survey. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2015;9:418-26.
26.     Hwang JI, Yoon TY, Jin HJ, Park Y, Park JY, Lee BJ. Patient safety
competence for final-year health professional students: Perceptions
of effectiveness of an interprofessional education course, J Inter
Prof Care 2016;30:732738.
27.     Torkaman M, Sabzi A, Farokhzadian J. The effect of patient
safety education on undergraduate nursing students’ patient safety
competencies. Int Q Community Health Educ 2020;26:26-7.
28.     Gleason KT, Commodore-Mensah Y, Wu AW, Kearns R,
Pronovost P, Aboumatar H, et al. Massive open online course
(MOOC) learning builds capacity and improves competence for
patient safety among global learners: A prospective cohort study.
Nurse Educ Today 2021;104:104984.
Nursing and Midwifery Studies
Volume 11, Issue 1
January 2022
Pages 51-61

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 15 September 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics