Development and psychometric evaluation of the emergency nurses’ professional resilience tool
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 17, Issue: 6 June, Page: e0269539
2022
- 4Citations
- 28Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- Captures28
- Readers28
- 28
Article Description
Background There is no specific tool for measuring the professional resilience of emergency nurses. Therefore, the present study aimed to design and psychometrically evaluate a new tool named the emergency nurses’ professional resilience tool. Method This mixed-method sequential exploratory study was conducted in two phases: (1) item generation using literature review and evaluation of the results of a qualitative study and (2) psychometric evaluation of the developed scale. The face, content, and construct validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis), reliability (internal consistency, relative, and absolute), and accountability were assessed in the population of Iranian nurses (N = 465) during March 2019-June 2020. Results The tool designed for assessing the professional resilience of Iranian nurses included 37 items. The average scale content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was equal to 0.94. The exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors, including professional competencies, emotional-cognitive characteristics, external support, in addition to behavioral and cognitive strategies, and explained 75.59% of the whole variance. Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation were 0.915 and 0.888, respectively. Construct validity for five factors was established with acceptable model fit indices [Chi–square/df = 1336.56/619, p < .001]; [Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.96]; [Non-Normed Fit Index [NNFI] = 0.96]; [Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.074 and 90 Percent Confidence Interval = (0.069; 0.080)]; and [SRMR = 0.095]. Conclusions According to the findings of the current study, the emergency nurses’ professional resilience tool can be used by healthcare managers as a valid and reliable scale to evaluate the professional resilience of nurses to designate them as nurses working in emergency and disaster situations.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85131772131&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269539; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35671289; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269539; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269539; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269539
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know