Dataset Information

Reliability and Validity Testing of the Assessment of the Environment for Person-Centered Management of BPSD and Assessment of Policies for Person-Centered Management of BPSD Measures.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Assessment of the Environment for Person-Centered Management of BPSD and the Assessment of Policies for Person-Centered Management of BPSD. The sample included 35 long term care facilities. There was evidence of reliability based on internal consistency and test-retest reliability of both measures. There was some evidence of validity based on Rasch model testing and INFIT and OUTFIT statistics. Across both measures there were six items with that were endorsed as present by all facilities. The INFIT and OUTFIT statistics were all within the expected range of .5 to 1.5 with the exception of four high OUTFIT statistics for the Assessment of the Environment for Person-Centered Management of BPSD. For the Assessment of Policies for Person-Centered Management of BPSD there were two items that had high INFIT statistics and six with low OUTFIT statistics and one with high OUTFIT statistics. Measure revisions are suggested including removal of some poor fitting items, items with no variance, and adding items to differentiate those very high in evidence of environments and policies that manage BPSD.

SUBMITTER: Resnick B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8351619 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and Validity Testing of the Assessment of the Environment for Person-Centered Management of BPSD and Assessment of Policies for Person-Centered Management of BPSD Measures.

Resnick Barbara B Kolanowski Ann A Van Haitsma Kimberly K Galik Elizabeth E Boltz Marie M Zhu Shijun S Ellis Jeanette J Behrens Liza L Eshraghi Karen K Viviano Nicole N Jao Ying-Ling YL

Journal of aging and environment 20200128 3

The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Assessment of the Environment for Person-Centered Management of BPSD and the Assessment of Policies for Person-Centered Management of BPSD. The sample included 35 long term care facilities. There was evidence of reliability based on internal consistency and test-retest reliability of both measures. There was some evidence of validity based on Rasch model testing and INFIT and OUTFIT statistics. Across both measures there w ...[more]

PMID: 34378006

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmotional clarity has often been assessed with self-report measures, but efforts have also been made to measure it passively, which has advantages such as avoiding potential inaccuracy in responses stemming from social desirability bias or poor insight into emotional clarity. Response times (RTs) to emotion items administered in ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) may be an indirect indicator of emotional clarity. Another proposed indicator is the drift rate parameter, which assumes that, aside from how fast a person responds to emotion items, the measurement of emotional clarity also requires the consideration of how careful participants were in providing responses.ObjectiveThis paper aims to examine the reliability and validity of RTs and drift rate parameters from EMA emotion items as indicators of individual differences in emotional clarity.MethodsSecondary data analysis was conducted on data from 196 adults with type 1 diabetes who completed a 2-week EMA study involving the completion of 5 to 6 surveys daily. If lower RTs and higher drift rates (from EMA emotion items) were indicators of emotional clarity, we hypothesized that greater levels (ie, higher clarity) should be associated with greater life satisfaction; lower levels of neuroticism, depression, anxiety, and diabetes distress; and fewer difficulties with emotion regulation. Because prior literature suggested emotional clarity could be valence specific, EMA items for negative affect (NA) and positive affect were examined separately.ResultsReliability of the proposed indicators of emotional clarity was acceptable with a small number of EMA prompts (ie, 4 to 7 prompts in total or 1 to 2 days of EMA surveys). Consistent with expectations, the average drift rate of NA items across multiple EMAs had expected associations with other measures, such as correlations of r=-0.27 (P<.001) with depression symptoms, r=-0.27 (P=.001) with anxiety symptoms, r=-0.15 (P=.03) with emotion regulation difficulties, and r=0.63 (P<.001) with RTs to NA items. People with a higher NA drift rate responded faster to NA emotion items, had greater subjective well-being (eg, fewer depression symptoms), and had fewer difficulties with overall emotion regulation, which are all aligned with the expectation for an emotional clarity measure. Contrary to expectations, the validities of average RTs to NA items, the drift rate of positive affect items, and RTs to positive affect items were not strongly supported by our results.ConclusionsStudy findings provided initial support for the validity of NA drift rate as an indicator of emotional clarity but not for that of other RT-based clarity measures. Evidence was preliminary because the sample size was not sufficient to detect small but potentially meaningful correlations, as the sample size of the diabetes EMA study was chosen for other more primary research questions. Further research on passive emotional clarity measures is needed.

Project description:BackgroundDespite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS.MethodsA modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities.ResultsVoting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients).ConclusionsThe person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.

Dataset Information

Reliability and Validity Testing of the Assessment of the Environment for Person-Centered Management of BPSD and Assessment of Policies for Person-Centered Management of BPSD Measures.

Publications

Reliability and Validity Testing of the Assessment of the Environment for Person-Centered Management of BPSD and Assessment of Policies for Person-Centered Management of BPSD Measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets