ArticleInternational journal of nursing practice2024
Content validation study on the Advanced Practice Role Delineation Tool.
Article in International journal of nursing practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Content validation study on the Advanced Practice Role Delineation Tool.International journal of nursing practice · 2024Article
- Advanced practice role delineation within Hong Kong: A cross-sectional study.Nursing & health sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRole understanding and practice standards become extremely important in countries that are developing and assessing nursing and advanced practice nursing (APN) roles.
aimTo describe the process and findings of a content validation study conducted on the Advanced Practice Role Delineation (APRD) tool in a Finnish context.
designA tool content validation study.
methodBetween September and October 2019, three rounds of surveys (n = 9, n = 8, n = 5) were conducted to assess the content validity of the APRD tool. Furthermore, a thorough literature review was conducted in December 2020 to examine how the tool has been used and validated between January 2000 and December 2020.
resultsA 45-item amendment of the APRD tool was created. The Scale Content Validity Index Average of 0.97 reflects excellent content validity. A literature review of 15 studies revealed that the tool has been used by many researchers, yet there is limited research on its content and construct.
conclusionThe steps taken in this study were effective and may be replicated in other countries. Further studies are needed to validate the content and structure of the developed 45-item modification of the APRD tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.