ArticleNursing research and practice2025
Development and Evaluation of the Reliability and Validity of Video-Based Assessment Checklists of Nursing Skills via Chest-Mounted Cameras for Home-Visiting Nurses.
Article in Nursing research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ensuring that home-visiting nurses (HVNs) possess adequate skills for providing appropriate care is crucial in the context of increasing service demand with advanced care needs. However, current quality assurance relies on mentors' subjective assessments during accompanying visits, which are burdensome and rater-dependent. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the inter- and intrarater reliability and concurrent validity of objective video-based assessment (VBA) checklists for HVNs' nursing skills, focusing on peripheral intravenous catheter placement, pressure injury care, defecation care, and skin tear care to reduce the burden of skill assessment at home and ensure valid skill assessments. Methods: The checklists were developed through a literature review, focus group interviews, and a group meeting using the nominal group technique to ensure content validity. The inter- and intrarater reliabilities and concurrent validity of the checklists were evaluated using videos of nurses providing care to simulated patients. Five nursing researchers with experience in mentoring nurses assessed the videos twice using checklists with a washout period. The inter- and intrarater reliabilities were analyzed using Gwet's AC1 statistics. Concurrent validity was evaluated with sensitivity and specificity of assessment using checklists against raters' subjective assessments, with expertise in nursing skills as the gold standard. Results: The checklists demonstrated substantial to almost perfect inter- and intrarater reliabilities (AC1: 0.63-1.00) for each item. The overall assessments also showed more than substantial inter- and intrarater reliabilities (AC1: 0.72-1.00). The sensitivity and specificity of the checklists were both above 0.90, indicating high concurrent validity. Conclusion: The checklists were reliable and valid for objectively assessing HVNs' skills. The VBA suggests feasible and cost-effective methods for quality assurance, potentially improving the quality of home care. Further studies with patients in diverse clinical settings are required to enhance the generalizability of the results.
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.