摘要
A range of different language systems for nursing diagnosis, interventions and outcomes are currently available. Nursing terminologies are intended to support nursing practice but they have to be evaluated. This study aims to assess the results of an expert survey to establish the face validity of a nursing interface terminology. The study applied a descriptive design with a cross-sectional survey strategy using a written questionnaire administered to expert nurses working in hospitals. Sample size was estimated at 35 participants. The questionnaire included topics related to validity and reliability criteria for nursing controlled vocabularies described in the literature. Mean global score and criteria scoring at least 7 were considered main outcome measures. The analysis included descriptive statistics with a confidence level of 95%. The mean global score was 8.1. The mean score for the validity criteria was 8.4 and 7.8 for reliability and applicability criteria. Two of the criteria for reliability and applicability evaluation did not achieve minimum scores. According to the experts’ responses, this terminology meets face validity, but that improvements are required in some criteria and further research is needed to completely demonstrate its metric properties.
A range of different language systems for nursing diagnosis, interventions and outcomes are currently available. Nursing terminologies are intended to support nursing practice but they have to be evaluated. This study aims to assess the results of an expert survey to establish the face validity of a nursing interface terminology. The study applied a descriptive design with a cross-sectional survey strategy using a written questionnaire administered to expert nurses working in hospitals. Sample size was estimated at 35 participants. The questionnaire included topics related to validity and reliability criteria for nursing controlled vocabularies described in the literature. Mean global score and criteria scoring at least 7 were considered main outcome measures. The analysis included descriptive statistics with a confidence level of 95%. The mean global score was 8.1. The mean score for the validity criteria was 8.4 and 7.8 for reliability and applicability criteria. Two of the criteria for reliability and applicability evaluation did not achieve minimum scores. According to the experts’ responses, this terminology meets face validity, but that improvements are required in some criteria and further research is needed to completely demonstrate its metric properties.
