Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34858642›Full record

ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2021

Validation of a clinical competence evaluation tool for community service nurses in North West province, South Africa.

Kholofelo L Matlhaba, Abel J Pienaar, Leepile A Sehularo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kholofelo L MatlhabaSchool of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Mahikeng, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3564-7344
Abel J PienaarDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health Studies, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0148-752X
Leepile A SehularoFaculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Mahikeng, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4286-6761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle has been done to evaluate clinical competence of community service nurses (CSNs) during the 12-month compulsory community service in South Africa. Evaluating clinical competence of CSNs would be of benefit as it might improve quality patient care and promote patient satisfaction. It therefore became of paramount importance for the researcher to establish some method of evaluating the CSNs' clinical competence during their compulsory service in the North West province (NWP), South Africa.

aimTo evaluate the clinical competence evaluation tool (CCET) for CSNs for reliability and validity.

settingA selected regional level 2 hospital.

methodsTen experts participated in the validation process. The tool was tested at one of the public hospitals in the NWP and 11 out of 13 CSNs participated in this process. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25 was employed and the reliability of the tool was measured using Cronbach's alpha.

resultsThis tool's content validity index has exceeded 0.80 and is indicated at 0.98, which reflects excellent content validity. The higher the content validity ratio score the greater the agreement amongst the experts. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients in the six competencies are all greater than 0.7 implying that the tool developed in this study is reliable. All the experts indicated that the tool is clear, simple, general, accessible and important.

conclusionFrom the above-mentioned results, a CCET for CSNs was proven to be valid and reliable. CONTRIBUTION: This was the first tool to be developed in NWP of South Africa.

Indexed as

clinical competenceevaluation toolexpertsreliabilityvalidation

Identifiers

PMID34858642
PMCPMC8603114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.