Compassionate communication in acute healthcare: establishing the face and content validity of a questionnaire

Abstract

The National Health Service is committed to measuring the quality of nursing care through adopting a number of indicators which are not nationally standardised. Compassionate communication is one indicator, but it is unclear how this is assessed or demonstrated in practice. This is primarily a methodological paper which aims to establish the face and content validity of a questionnaire to measure nurses’ non-verbal methods of compassionate communication with patients in acute healthcare. An existing questionnaire was amended to meet the study’s requirements. A ‘lay expert sample’ was used to rate the face validity and a ‘research expert sample’ to rate the content validity of the instrument. Modification of one response and adding instructions on how to complete the questionnaire meant that Version 2 potentially has high face validity. The questionnaire demonstrated excellent content validity (Scale-Content Validity Index = 0.85). Recommendations include pilot testing to further investigate the construct of non-verbal compassionate communication in an acute healthcare context. This research can be used to inform the measurement of compassionate communication and promote standardisation nationally.

Translation and validation study for the stroke self‐efficacy questionnaire in stroke survivors

“…The Content Validity Index (CVI) provides an expert judgement of the items and was calculated as the percentage of items with a rating of 3 or above. It confirms that the measurement includes an adequate and representative set of items which reflect the content that the questionnaire aims to examine and also whether the items are relevant to the construct (McElroy & Esterhuizen, 2017;Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). Davis' method was used to evaluate the experts' reports (Davis, 1992).…”

“…Davis' method was used to evaluate the experts' reports (Davis, ). Literature indicates a score of 0.80 CVI as a criterion for validity (Lynn, ; McElroy & Esterhuizen, ; Sealy et al, ). All of the items on the SSEQ were scored based on a 4‐point Likert scale (1 = “not relevant” to 4 = “very relevant and succinct”).…”

“…Face validity is described as reflecting the extent to which a measure looks valid as a measurement of the concept (Hardesty & Bearden, 2004;Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). Face validity is also used for clarity and unambiguity of an instrument's items, to determine if the items are easy to understand (McElroy & Esterhuizen, 2017). For determining face validity, the responses of 10 experts and 10 pilot study patients were evaluated.…”

Development and Psychometric Properties of a Compassionate Care Questionnaire for Nurses

“…In the present study, item generation was made using a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. While in some available instruments, the production of items has been solely generated through a review of literature and based on dictionary de nitions (deductive approach) [19,35,36]. Also, due to the in uence of social and cultural factors around the concept, there is a need to incorporate a deep understanding of related experiences of nurses, patients and family caregivers, assessment of which was performed in this study.…”

“…and the public, and on compassionate competence [17,18]. or non-verbal compassionate communication [19]. In addition, in most available tools, the de nition of compassion has been borrowed from the dictionary or a review of literature.…”