Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Trophic Structure and Energy Flow in a Pelteobagrus fulvidraco Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture System
Previous Article in Journal
A Mobile Application to Help Self-Manage Pain Severity, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Process Improvement Approaches for Increasing the Response of Emergency Departments against the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph191912025
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Scale of Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19: Psychometric Properties

by
Silmara Meneguin
1,*,
Camila Fernandes Pollo
1,
Ediana Preisler Melchiades
1,
Melissa Santiloni Montanha Ramos
1,
José Fausto de Morais
2 and
Cesar de Oliveira
3
1
Department of Nursing, Botucatu Medical School, Paulista State University, Botucatu 18618-687, SP, Brazil
2
Faculty of Mathematics, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38400-902, MG, Brazil
3
Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(19), 12025; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912025
Submission received: 22 June 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 23 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Improving the Performance of Public Emergency Departments during the COVID-19 Outbreak)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To avoid hospital transmission, all COVID-19 prevention measures should be followed. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a novel scale developed to assess adherence to good practices for COVID-19 in the hospital setting. A methodological cross-sectional study was conducted at a public hospital in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, with 307 healthcare providers. Data were collected using a questionnaire addressing sociodemographic/occupational data and the Adherence to Standard Precautions for COVID-19 scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and the intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure internal consistency and temporal stability (test-retest analysis), respectively. Concurrent validity was evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the scores of the overall scale and its domains. Factorial structure was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis and goodness-of-fit of the model was tested using confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the scale and its domains were higher than 0.7, except the psychosocial domain (0.61). All intraclass correlation coefficients were higher than 0.7. Strong correlations were found between the total score and the personal (0.84) and organizational (0.90) domains of the scale and a good correlation was found with the psychosocial domain (0.66). The fit of the multidimensional model was satisfactory for all parameters and the three-dimensional structure of the scale was confirmed by the fit of the factor loadings. The novel scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing adherence to good hospital practices for COVID-19.

1. Background

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, placing all countries in a state of maximum alert due to the exponential growth in the number of cases and rapid dissemination of the disease [1].
COVID-19 exerted impacts on the individual, interpersonal, organizational and extra-organizational levels, with considerable concerns for healthcare providers regarding infection, mortality, the need for social distancing and the socioeconomic crisis resulting from the vast spread of the virus [2]. As a consequence, an unprecedented global health crisis took place [3,4].
The high mortality and infection rates in combination with difficulties in containing the spread of the virus contributed to an increased level of awareness in the general population with regards to the health risks.
A closer proximity to the COVID-19 pandemic, for health professionals, may have increased the negative emotions associated with an increased risk scenario considerably [5]. Therefore, the World Health Organization has emphasized the importance of adopting protective measures to avoid infection and dissemination, as healthcare providers are the main vehicles for the transmission of microorganisms due to direct and indirect contact with infected patients [6].
The adequate use of standard precautions is essential for healthcare services that manage patients with COVID-19. The spread of infections at health services can be avoided through adherence to good standard practices. The lack of adherence to such practices by healthcare workers, especially in a pandemic scenario, is likely to result in an increased risk of infectious disease [7]. Such precautions involve hand sanitizing and the use of personal protective equipment [8]. To avoid hospital transmission, all COVID-19 prevention measures should be followed.
Healthcare workers, in particular nurses, are more exposed to infections due to their working environment than the general population [9,10]. Adherence to standard precautions at all times, independent of a case being suspected or confirmed, is considered the most effective method to prevent cross-infection [11]. Despite the overwhelming evidence on the efficacy of adherence to standard precautions, adherence to such practices is still insufficient among healthcare workers. Furthermore, adherence levels vary by different standard precaution components [12,13,14].
Healthcare workers were at the frontline in treating COVID-19 patients and helping to control the spread of the virus. However, any lack of adherence to standard precautions could increase the level of infection among such professionals and, ultimately, could lead to a collapse of the health system [15].
The critical condition of patients with a suspicion or confirmation of COVID-19 is generally accompanied by a variety of complications that cause an excessive workload for the entire health team, requiring commitment and adherence to good hospital practices to avoid the dissemination of the virus.
Adherence is a dynamic, multifactorial process that results from a set of determinants dependent on subjective, organizational and work-related factors. It is a complex decision-making process mediated by psychological traits, cognitive level, beliefs, values and sociocultural context [16].
Therefore, it is essential to assess adherence to standard precautions through the use of valid, reliable instruments for use when providing care for patients with COVID-19 [17,18,19]. Assessment tools are fundamental to the recognition of gaps in knowledge on the part of healthcare providers. However, the literature offers few instruments for assessing adherence to precautions for COVID-19. Most adherence assessment tools were designed for other diseases and do not address specificities inherent to the transmission of COVID-19 [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
This lack of validated tools for the assessment of adherence to good hospital practices for COVID-19 motivated the development of the present investigation. The development of the items and dimensions of the Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 scale (AGHPC) was based on a thorough review of the existent literature followed by a pilot conducted with sixteen nursing staff. The scale with 51 items was then evaluated by seven experts and the items that showed content validity of ≥0.83 were kept. In the semantic analysis, carried out with 35 health professionals, there were no changes requested and the comprehensiveness level was 0.87%. The AGHPC scale with 47 items and three dimensions (personal, organizational and psychosocial) developed in the present study achieved satisfactory content and face validity, meeting the parameters established in the literature [32].
Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a novel scale designed to assess adherence to good practices for COVID-19 in the hospital setting.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

A methodological, cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach was conducted in the period from April 2020 to October 2020. Data were collected from a public hospital in the state of São Paulo that serves as a reference center for the treatment of patients with a suspicion or confirmation of COVID-19. This public hospital has approximately 490 beds, of which 54 are in the adult, pediatric and neonatal intensive care units.

2.2. Study Population

The sample was composed of female and male healthcare workers aged 18 years or older who worked in sectors dedicated to the treatment of patients with a suspicion or confirmation of COVID-19 and who agreed to participate in the study. Participants who did not complete the questionnaire were excluded.
Although there is no gold standard for sample size when validating a new instrument, the recommendation is that the sample should be at least four to ten times the number of items with a minimum sample of 100 individuals, to ensure an appropriate validity analysis [33,34]. Our final analytical sample was composed of 307 participants.

2.3. Data Collection Procedure

A two-part data collection instrument was used. The first part addressed sociodemographic and occupational aspects and the second was the scale for the assessment of adherence to good hospital practices. The scale has 47 items distributed among three domains: personal, organizational and psychosocial. The response options are scored on a five-point scale: never = 1, rarely = 2, sometimes = 3, often = 4 and always = 5. The total ranges from 47 to 235 and is categorized as follows: ≤58 points = minimal adherence; 59 to 117 points = partial adherence; 118 to 175 points = moderate adherence; and 176 to 235 = maximal adherence. The score range categorization was based on the median value and the interquartile interval for the total scale score.
The researchers delivered the data collection instrument and statement of informed consent in a sealed envelope and the material was collected after being filled out. The average response time for the questionnaire was 20 min.
Thirty-one participants were reassessed between 7 and 14 days after their first interview to evaluate temporal stability (test-retest analysis).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

For the characterization of the sample, continuous variables were expressed as means and standard deviations and categorical variables were expressed as percentages.

2.5. Construct Validity

Exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine the factorial structure of the scale. The adequacy of the sample was calculated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. These two tests allow one to assess whether it is adequate to conduct a factor analysis or the sampling adequacy. The factorability of the data was determined by a value of KMO > 0.50 and significance of the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.05) [35].
The factorability was assessed using the Horn parallel analysis method, in which factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted. Indeed, in the exploratory factor analysis, two criteria were considered for the maintenance of questions/factors: absolute factor loading above 0.3 in only one factor and factors with three or more questions.
In the confirmatory factor analysis, the following fit indices were used: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), with values between 0.90 and 0.95 indicating acceptable fit levels and values ≥ 0.95 indicating a good level of fit of the model; the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) with values ≤ 0.05 or 0.08 indicating a good fit and rejection of the null hypothesis (p < 0.05) and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) with values of 0.08 or lower indicating a good fit. The minimum value of the discrepancy function based on the chi-square (CMIN) and CMIN/df was also estimated. In addition, the standardized loading of the items should be greater than 0.3 [36].

2.6. Convergent Validity

Tests of convergent validity assume that the measures under study are related to the same concept. It may be that two measures correlate not because the two capture the same concept, but because casual relationships exist that drive the correlation [37].
Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated between the scores of the overall scale and its domains. Values < 0.4, 0.4 to 0.6 and >0.6 were considered weak, moderate and strong correlations, respectively [38].

2.7. Reliability

Reliability analysis was performed based on internal consistency and temporal stability (test-retest analysis). Internal consistency of the scale and its dimensions was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, with values higher than 0.70 considered acceptable [39]. Temporal stability was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), with values < 0.4, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.6 to 0.75 and >0.75, respectively, considered weak, fair, good and excellent [40].
Statistical analysis was performed with the aid of SPSS version 25® (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The significance level was set at 5% (p < 0.05).

2.8. Ethical Issues

This study received approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Botucatu School of Medicine (certificate number: 4.007.407) and was conducted in accordance with norms governing research involving human subjects and it was structured according to guideline recommendations Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) [41] and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) [42].

3. Results

The final sample was composed of 307 participants. Most participants were women (84%), living with a partner (70%), working at intensive care (35.5%) as nursing technicians (48.5%), Table 1.
The total score of the Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 scale in the present study was 177 as follows: 50 points at the personal, 96 at the organizational and 31 points at the psychosocial domain.

3.1. Construct Validity

3.1.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis revealed three oblique factors with an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 (Figure 1), which were confirmed by Horn’s parallel analysis. For the evaluation of dimensionality, exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine how the items were grouped. Horn’s parallel analysis indicated three-dimensionality for the scale. The adequacy of the sample for the analysis was demonstrated by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure (0.96) and the result of Bartlett’s test of sphericity (10,680.7) (p < 0.01). These results demonstrated suitability of the data matrix for factor analysis.
Table 2 displays the data from the exploratory factor analysis using the number of factors identified in the scree plot. The factor loadings were presented within each respective domain. The data show a total variance of 78.2% (51.52% for the organizational domain, 7.5% for the psychosocial domain and 13.28% for the personal domain). All items had values greater than 0.3.

3.1.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The three-dimensionality of the instrument was indicated by the confirmatory factor analysis. The fit indexes results are: RMSEA (0.072; p = 0.001), CFI (0.996), TLI (0.995), CMIN (2428.3; p ≤ 0.001), CMIN/DF (2.578) and SRMR (0.082). The standardized loadings of the items resulted in >0.3.
Table 3 displays the correlations between the total score of the scale and its domains. Strong correlations were found between the total score and both the personal domain (0.84) and organizational domain (0.90) and good correlation was found with the psychosocial domain (0.66).
Table 4 displays Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the scale and its respective domains. Correlation values were considered satisfactory (>0.70), except for the psychosocial domain (0.61).
Table 5 shows the median (25th–75th percentile) of the total scale and domain scores on two occasions for the evaluation of temporal stability (test-retest analysis). All ICCs were higher than 0.7, demonstrating satisfactory temporal stability.
The validation of the scale based on the analyses of its psychometric properties confirmed 47 items that represent the construct.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a novel scale developed to assess adherence to good practices for COVID-19 in the hospital setting with 47 items. The original scale content validation study included the participation of physicians, physical therapists and nursing staff.
It is difficult to measure adherence to good practices in the hospital setting. Therefore, there was a clear need to develop an instrument capable of assessing adherence amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. In the present study, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to obtain a reasonable and comprehensive model that in turn would produce a good theoretical and conceptual framework with a sound structure [43]. Our exploratory factor analysis has confirmed the tridimensionality of the Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 (AGHPC) scale proposed by the authors. However, the factor 3 showed weaker correlations, lower internal consistency and lower explained variance i.e., 7.5%. After the confirmatory factor analysis, all the quality criteria for model adjustment were considered satisfactory. The final model showed high adjustment quality levels for all tests (chi-squared = 2428.3, CMIN/DF = 2.578, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.082, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.995, CFI = 0.996, quality of adjustment index = 0.993 and AGFI = 0.991). In general, it is recommended that the confirmatory factor analysis should be performed with three or more items per factor [44].
Construct validation was also performed using concurrent validity between the overall scale and its domains. Strong correlations were found between the scale and both the organization domain (0.90) and personal domain (0.84) and a good correlation was found with the psychosocial domain (0.66).
As for determining the reliability of the scale, the internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which is an important method for assessing the reliability of instruments with multiple items [45]. Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was considered excellent (0.96). A high alpha was found for the organizational domain (0.95), 0.88 was found for the personal domain and the coefficient for the psychosocial domain, which has fewer items, was 0.61. It is important to stress that Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are strongly influenced by the number of items on a measurement instrument [45].
Satisfactory results were found with regards to temporal stability (test-retest), with ICC values higher than 0.70 for the overall scale and its respective domains. Therefore, the adherence scale had good reproducibility. As an important methodological note, people’s moment-by-moment experienced emotions are influenced by transitory situational factors and exhibit very low stability [46]. With regards to sample size, the retest was conducted in accordance with the COSMIN checklist, i.e., less than 30 participants, 30 to 49 participants, 50 to 99 participants and greater than 100 participants denote poor, fair, good and excellent methodological quality of the studies, respectively [47]. On the other hand, a more recent reference for the retest sample size derived from Power Analysis and Sample Size (PASS) software was used [48].
In this study, the adherence rate to the scale was 54.5%. The data were collected during the first months of the pandemic when there was little knowledge about the coronavirus. A study conducted in Italy showed that the adoption of standard precautions is crucial to prevent the spread of infection and protect the health of health workers. However, such an approach will only be effective if it is adhered to by all health professionals [15].
The present study has limitations that should be acknowledged. First, this is a study conducted in only one health center. Second, it has a cross-sectional design which does not allow us to imply causality. Third, the resources available to fight COVID-19 could vary within Brazil and between countries. Fourth, we were not able to perform a responsiveness analysis due to restrictions inherent to the pandemic. Although the present study has an adequate sample size, our findings should be interpreted with caution and should not be generalized to all health care workers. It is also important to highlight the lack of studies on the theme, which made it difficult to compare our results. Finally, the psychometric properties of the measure should be examined in the general population of other countries.
The main contribution of this study was the development of a hospital scale for assessment of the adherence of healthcare providers to good practices to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. This study could also contribute to the development of interventions that seek the establishment of safe care within the hospital, consequently minimizing the occurrence of morbidity and mortality.

5. Conclusions

The Scale of Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 is a valid, reliable instrument for assessing adherence to good hospital practices for COVID-19. This novel scale offers the opportunity to collect data that enable the design and implementation of interventions that improve the quality of hospital care for patients with COVID-19.
Although the results were statistically significant, similar studies should be conducted to confirm the generalizability of the results, including in other countries.

Author Contributions

Study design and concept: C.F.P. and S.M.; Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data: M.S.M.R., E.P.M. and J.F.d.M.; Drafting of the manuscript: S.M., E.P.M. and C.F.P.; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: C.d.O., S.M. and C.F.P.; Approval of the final version: S.M. and C.d.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (grant: ES/T008822/11). The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The project was approved by the ethics committee of the São Paulo State University (UNESP), Sao Paulo (protocol number 2.392.601).

Informed Consent Statement

All participants were informed of the benefits and risks related to the study and provided their written informed consent for the study and for the publication of results.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available because they contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information that compromises the privacy of the research participants. However, an anonymous dataset can be made available from the corresponding author under reasonable request. Data requests should be sent to Silmara Meneguin, e-mail: [email protected].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that this research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wang, C.; Horby, P.W.; Hayden, F.G.; Gao, G.F. A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern. Lancet 2020, 395, 470–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ferguson, N.M.; Laydon, D.; Nedjati-Gilani, G.; Imai, N.; Ainslie, K.; Baguelin, M.; Bhatia, S.; Boonyasiri, A.; Cucunubá, Z.; Cuomo-Dannenburg, G.; et al. Impact of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) to Reduce COVID-19 Mortality and Healthcare Demand; Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  3. Shaaban, A.N.; Peleteiro, B.; Martins, M.R.O. COVID-19: What Is Next for Portugal? Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Deng, J.; Zhou, F.; Hou, W.; Silver, Z.; Wong, C.Y.; Chang, O.; Huang, E.; Zuo, Q.K. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances in COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2021, 1486, 90–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Qian, D.; Li, O. The Relationship between Risk Event Involvement and Risk Perception during the COVID-19 Outbreak in China. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 2020, 12, 983–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. World Health Organization. Interim Guidance: Infection Prevention and Control during Health Care When COVID-19 is Suspected; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/10665-331495 (accessed on 1 July 2020).
  7. Wong, E.L.; Ho, K.F.; Dong, D.; Cheung, A.W.; Yau, P.S.; Chan, E.Y.; Yeoh, E.K.; Chien, W.T.; Chen, F.Y.; Poon, S.; et al. Compliance with Standard Precautions and Its Relationship with Views on Infection Control and Prevention Policy among Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak: Rights, Roles and Responsibilities of Health Workers, Including Key Considerations for Occupational Safety and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-rights-roles-respon-hw-COVID-19.pdf?sfvrsn=bcabd401_0 (accessed on 1 July 2020).
  9. Magill, S.S.; Edwards, J.R.; Bamberg, W.; Beldavs, Z.G.; Dumyati, G.; Kainer, M.A.; Lynfield, R.; Maloney, M.; McAllister-Hollod, L.; Nadle, J.; et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 1198–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Verbeek, J.H.; Rajamaki, B.; Ijaz, S.; Tikka, C.; Ruotsalainen, J.H.; Edmond, M.B.; Sauni, R.; Kilinc Balci, F.S. Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 7, CD011621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Valim, M.D.; Marziale, M.H.; Richart-Martinez, M.; Sanjuan-Quiles, A. Instruments for evaluating compliance with infection control practices and factors that affect it: An integrative review. J. Clin. Nurs. 2014, 23, 1502–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kim, H.; Hwang, Y.H. Factors contributing to clinical nurse compliance with infection prevention and control practices: A cross-sectional study. Nurs. Health Sci. 2020, 22, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lim, S.H.; Bouchoucha, S.L.; Aloweni, F.; Bte Suhari, N. Evaluation of infection prevention and control preparedness in acute care nurses: Factors influencing adherence to standard precautions. Infect. Dis. Health 2021, 26, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pereira, F.M.; Lam, S.C.; Chan, J.H.; Malaguti-Toffano, S.E.; Gir, E. Difference in compliance with Standard Precautions by nursing staff in Brazil versus Hong Kong. Am. J. Infect. Control 2015, 43, 769–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Barranco, R.; Ventura, F. COVID-19 and infection in health-care workers: An emerging problem. Med. Leg. J. 2020, 88, 65–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Programa Nacional de DST e Aids. In Manual de Adesão ao Tratamento Para Pessoas Vivendo com HIV e Aids; Ministério da Saúde: Brasília, DF, Brazil, 2008. Available online: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/manual_adesao_tratamento_hiv.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2020).
  17. Junior, A.; Dula, J.; Mahumane, S.; Koole, O.; Enosse, S.; Fodjo, J.N.S.; Colebunders, R. Adherence to COVID-19 Preventive Measures in Mozambique: Two Consecutive Online Surveys. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Urbán, R.; Király, O.; Demetrovics, Z. Who complies with coronavirus disease 2019 precautions and who does not? Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2021, 34, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Streiner, D.L.; Norman, G.R.; Cairney, J. Health Measurement Scales; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; Volume 1, Available online: http://www.oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001/med-9780199685219 (accessed on 12 January 2020).
  20. Nguyen, H.T.; Do, B.N.; Pham, K.M.; Kim, G.B.; Dam, H.T.B.; Nguyen, T.T.; Nguyen, T.T.P.; Nguyen, Y.H.; Sørensen, K.; Pleasant, A.; et al. Fear of COVID-19 Scale-Associations of Its Scores with Health Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors among Medical Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. O’Connor, R.J.; Preston, N.; Parkin, A.; Makower, S.; Ross, D.; Gee, J.; Halpin, S.J.; Horton, M.; Sivan, M. The COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRS): Application and psychometric analysis in a post-COVID-19 syndrome cohort. J. Med. Virol. 2022, 94, 1027–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, S.A.; Mathis, A.A.; Jobe, M.C.; Pappalardo, E.A. Clinically significant fear and anxiety of COVID-19: A psychometric examination of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 290, 113112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. El-Bardan, M.F.; Lathabhavan, R. Fear of COVID-19 scale: Psychometric properties, reliability and validity in Egyptian population. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2021, 15, 102153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nikčević, A.V.; Spada, M.M. The COVID-19 anxiety syndrome scale: Development and psychometric properties. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 292, 113322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Silva, W.A.D.; de Sampaio Brito, T.R.; Pereira, C.R. COVID-19 anxiety scale (CAS): Development and psychometric properties. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 5693–5702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nochaiwong, S.; Ruengorn, C.; Awiphan, R.; Kanjanarat, P.; Ruanta, Y.; Phosuya, C.; Boonchieng, W.; Nanta, S.; Chongruksut, W.; Thavorn, K.; et al. COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS): Development, validation, psychometric analysis and interpretation. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e048241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Leite, Â.; Vidal, D.G.; Sousa, H.F.P.E.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Magano, J. Portuguese Version of COVID-19 Perceived Risk Scale and COVID-19 Phobia Scale: Psychometric Properties. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 1044–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Al-Ma’seb, H.B.; Al-Sejari, M.M. Psychometric properties of the Illness Attitude Toward COVID-19 Scale (IATCS). Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2021, 71, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Tambling, R.R.; Russell, B.S.; Park, C.L.; Fendrich, M.; Hutchinson, M.; Horton, A.L.; Tomkunas, A.J. Measuring Cumulative Stressfulness: Psychometric Properties of the COVID-19 Stressors Scale. Health Educ. Behav. 2021, 48, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Capone, V.; Donizzetti, A.R.; Park, M.S. Validation and Psychometric Evaluation of the COVID-19 Risk Perception Scale (CoRP): A New Brief Scale to Measure Individuals’ Risk Perception. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2021, 27, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Park, D.-I. Development and Validation of a Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Questionnaire on COVID-19 (KAP COVID-19). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Meneguin, S.; Pollo, C.F.; Garuzi, M.; Morais, J.F.; Reche, M.C.; Melchiades, E.P.; Coró, C.; Segalla, A.V.Z. Creation and content validity of a scale for assessing adherence to good practices for COVID-19. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2022, 75, e20210223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. de Vet, H.C.; Adèr, H.J.; Terwee, C.B.; Pouwer, F. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual. Life Res. 2005, 14, 1203–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Anthoine, E.; Moret, L.; Regnault, A.; Sébille, V.; Hardouin, J.B. Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2014, 12, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. O’Rourke, N.; Hatcher, L. A Step-By-Step Approach to Using Sas for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pasquali, L. Psicometria: Teoria dos Testes na Psicologia e na Educação; Vozes: Petrópolis, Brazil, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  38. Souza, A.C.; Alexandre, N.M.C.; Guirarbello, E.B. Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: Avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade. Epidemiol. Serv. Saude 2017, 26, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ogrinc, G.; Davies, L.; Goodman, D.; Batalden, P.B.; Davidoff, F.; Stevens, D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2016, 25, 986–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gagnier, J.J.; Lai, J.; Mokkink, L.B.; Terwee, C.B. COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual. Life Res. 2021, 30, 2197–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Principal components and factor analysis. In Using Multivariate Statistics; HarperCollins College Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2001; Volume 4, pp. 582–633. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sijtsma, K. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika 2009, 74, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Epstein, S. The Stability of Behavior: I. On Predicting Most of the People Much of the Time. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37, 1097–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Terwee, C.B.; Mokkink, L.B.; Knol, D.L.; Ostelo, R.W.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual. Life Res. 2012, 21, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Bujang, M.; Baharum, N. A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: A review. Arch. Orofac. Sci. 2017, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 12025 g001 550
Figure 1. Scree plot of Horn’s parallel analysis.
Figure 1. Scree plot of Horn’s parallel analysis.
Ijerph 19 12025 g001
Table
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants (n = 307).
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants (n = 307).
Variablen (%)
Sex
Female258 (84.0)
Male49 (16.0)
Marital status
With partner215 (70.0)
Without partner92 (30.0)
Religion
Catholic 169 (55.0)
Non-Catholic 138 (45.0)
Hospital sector
Ward53 (17.3)
Intensive care unit 109 (35.5)
Emergency room 89 (29.0)
Other 56 (18.2)
Professional background
Nursing technician 149 (48.5)
Nurse 124 (40.4)
Physician 23 (7.5)
Other 11 (3.6)
Post-graduate degree
Does not have 200 (65.1)
Specialization90 (29.3)
Master’s15 (4.9)
Doctorate2 (0.7)
Monthly income
<USD 2101 (0.3)
USD 211 to 630 136 (44.3)
USD 631 to 1050 116 (37.8)
>USD 1051 54 (17.6)
VariableMean (+/−SD)
Number of jobs 1 (1–2)
Weekly workload (hours) 12 (12–12)
Age (years) 35.53 (8.53)
VariableMedian (25th–75th percentile)
Time since graduation (months)96 (36–156)
Work experience (months) 84 (24–144)
Time in sector (months) 24 (6–84)
Table
Table 2. Analysis of factor loadings, communality, eigenvalues and variance explained by total and each factor of scale (n = 307).
Table 2. Analysis of factor loadings, communality, eigenvalues and variance explained by total and each factor of scale (n = 307).
FactorItemsFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Communalities
Personal
10.8890.1950.1260.827
50.6890.4820.2010.591
80.705−0.0060.4550.610
90.838−0.0080.3360.829
140.7060.038−0.1600.718
180.8780.1850.2600.836
200.7150.2300.4820.816
240.7940.1980.0380.716
280.7090.1200.5800.688
370.8630.1540.1990.805
420.8350.3120.1870.811
450.847−0.0080.3610.826
470.7760.3150.4590.723
Organizational
20.3350.8640.2040.817
70.0680.7550.4420.660
100.3100.6320.4820.787
130.1990.8750.1210.825
100.4850.6820.3920.720
120.2110.8080.1410.717
150.1220.5990.4680.592
170.1330.6530.3540.589
210.3920.6230.4820.768
230.4150.710−0.0060.567
250.2580.7680.4940.815
270.4290.7130.2890.810
290.2000.8330.1640.801
300.3920.7320.4280.784
310.4150.7890.2330.763
320.4340.7090.1590.692
340.3170.6580.4640.751
350.2120.7280.4440.815
360.3780.6320.2610.593
390.1930.653−0.0850.602
400.3180.8650.1570.818
430.1040.7290.4420.693
440.4120.7850.3230.754
460.3360.6840.4820.786
Psychosocial
30.330−0.0070.8470.826
60.310−0.1590.7980.784
110.4080.2100.8890.842
160.134−0.0430.7170.617
190.205−0.3090.7980.689
220.1870.4650.7200.697
260.3420.1200.6800.587
330.0040.5910.1660.377
380.1780.2550.6960.623
410.4820.3800.6320.786
Variance explained by factor: 13.28%, 51.52%, 7.5%; total variance explained: 78.2%.
Table
Table 3. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (rho) between total score of the Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 and its domains (n = 307).
Table 3. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (rho) between total score of the Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 and its domains (n = 307).
ASPCPERSORGPSYCH
AGHPC1
PERS0.841 *1
ORG0.907 *0.705 *1
PSYCH0.665 *0.485 *0.416 *1
AGHPC—Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19; PSYC—psychosocial domain; ORG—organizational domain; PERS—personal domain; * correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Table
Table 4. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 and its domains (n = 307).
Table 4. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 and its domains (n = 307).
N. of ItemsCronbach’s Alpha
AGHPC 470.96
PERS130.88
ORG240.95
PSYCH100.61
AGHPC—Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19; PSYCH—psychosocial domain; ORG—organizational domain; PERS—personal domain.
Table
Table 5. Median (25th–75th percentile) of the temporal stability distribution for Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 and its domains (n = 31).
Table 5. Median (25th–75th percentile) of the temporal stability distribution for Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19 and its domains (n = 31).
Test-RetestM1 *M2 **ICC ***
AGHPC 74 (67.5–77.5)183 (173–188)0.742 (0.77–085)
PSYCH15 (13–18)38 (35.5–40.0)0.710 (0.62–0.68)
ORG38 (34–42)95 (87.5–99.5)0.874 (0.89–0.95)
PERS17 (16–20)49 (45.5–52.0)0.768 (0.78–0.81)
AGHPC—Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19; PSYCH—psychosocial domain; ORG—organizational domain; PERS—personal domain; * Moment 1—first interview; ** Moment 2—second interview after 7 to 14 days, *** ICC—intraclass correlation coefficient.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Meneguin, S.; Pollo, C.F.; Melchiades, E.P.; Ramos, M.S.M.; de Morais, J.F.; de Oliveira, C. Scale of Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19: Psychometric Properties. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912025

AMA Style

Meneguin S, Pollo CF, Melchiades EP, Ramos MSM, de Morais JF, de Oliveira C. Scale of Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19: Psychometric Properties. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Meneguin, Silmara, Camila Fernandes Pollo, Ediana Preisler Melchiades, Melissa Santiloni Montanha Ramos, José Fausto de Morais, and Cesar de Oliveira. 2022. "Scale of Adherence to Good Hospital Practices for COVID-19: Psychometric Properties" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912025

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop