Development and evaluation of an instrument to measure community pharmacists’ self-efficacy beliefs about communicating with Spanish-speaking patients

Abstract

Background Hispanics are the largest growing population in the United States and their use of prescription medications can be influenced by the education and counseling they receive from pharmacists. However, little is known about pharmacists' communication with patients who speak Spanish or factors that can influence such communication. Objectives The objective of the study was to develop and validate an instrument to measure pharmacists' self-efficacy in communicating with Spanish-speaking patients. Methods An initial pool of 15 items developed from previous research and suggestions from communication experts and practicing pharmacists was subjected to cognitive interviewing. Nine retained items were administered to 1022 licensed pharmacists by mail survey. Summary statistics and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were conducted. Retained factors were determined by the examination of eigenvalues and Scree test results. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to assess internal consistency. Results A total of 540 community pharmacists completed the survey. Item means ranged from 2.93(SD=1.47) to 1.58(SD=0.88) based on a 5-point scale (1-not at all confident to 5-extremely confident). EFA resulted in a 2-factor solution, accounting for 71% of the variance. The 2 factors consisted of Health and Drug Information (alpha = 0.92) and Opening the Encounter (alpha = 0.75). The alpha for the overall scale was 0.88. Conclusions We found evidence to support the reliability and validity of an instrument to measure pharmacists' self-efficacy beliefs about communicating with Spanish-speaking patients in community practice. Practitioners and researchers may use this instrument to inform pharmacy education, pharmacy practice improvement, and research efforts around communicating with Spanish-speaking clients.

Validation of tools for the evaluation of pharmaceutical services: A systematic review

“…For the development of measures, the studies analyzed in this review used references to previous literature or adapted instruments already in use in other countries. However, the majority of the articles analyzed did not report the type of methodological design used in the study Delgado et al, 2009;Allenet et al, 2006;Horvat et al, 2010;Young et al, 2011;Martin et al, 2010;Desrochers et al, 2011;Ngorsuraches et al, 2008;Williams et De Jesus et al 963 al., 2012). According to Rodrigues (2004) and Polit (2004), study design should be chosen in consideration of the human and material resources available and collected, the duration of the study, the representativeness of the population being studied, ethical issues, selection criteria, and possible biases.…”

“…Most studies in this review used the parameters of internal consistency (Cronbach's α) and factor analysis. Based on the results of these analyses, the authors concluded that their instruments were valid and reliable, and that they were ready to be used in service Armando et al, 2008;Delgado et al, 2009;Allenet et al, 2006;Horvat et al, 2010;Young et al, 2011;Skomo et al, 2009;Gourley et al, 2001;Desrochers et al, 2011;Ngorsuraches et al, 2008;Fang et al, 2011;Jocic et al, 2014;Sakharkar et al, 2014;. However, the same studies reported that more research was needed to expand the robustness of the instruments (Vituri et al, 2009;Raymundo, 2009;Bittencourt et al, 2011;Higgins et al, 2006;Feinstein et al, 1990;Delgado et al, 2009;Gourley et al, 2001;Jocic et al, 2014;Sakharkar et al, 2014).…”

“…Questionnaire; Likert Scale NR NR Cronbach's alpha NR Factor analysis (Varimax, Kmo) NR along with other kinds of validity, but only 10 (43%) Martin et al, 2010;Skomo et al, 2009;Gourley et al, 2001;Jocic et al, 2014;Sakharkar et al, 2014;Sriram et al, 2014;Aljumah et al, 2014) tested only construct validity. Criterion validity testing was not used as the sole methodology in any of the studies; two studies (8%) tested criterion validity in conjunction with content and construct validity Young et al, 2011). Studies appear to jointly evaluate reliability and validity, as it was found out that 22 (95%) studies performed complete analyses of reliability and validity (examining test-retest, inter-rater, internal consistency reliability and content, construct, and criterion validity) Allenet et al, 2006;Horvat et al, 2010;Young et al, 2011;Skomo et al, 2009;Gourley et al, 2001;Desrochers et al, 2011;Ngorsuraches et al, 2008;Fang et al, 2011;Jocic et al, 2014;Sakharkar et al, 2014;Sriram et al, 2014;.…”

Pharmacists’ provision of information to Spanish-speaking patients: A social cognitive approach

“…Survey items were based upon previous literature. 14,27-29 The survey also was pilot tested with two communication experts and six practicing community pharmacists to evaluate content validity; items were revised based upon their suggestions. This study specifically analyses data from a subset of participants that responded to the following vignette: A patient comes into your pharmacy to fill a prescription for Paroxetine Hydro-chloride, also known as Paxil.…”

“…The pharmacists’ self-efficacy in communicating with Spanish-speaking patients (PECS) instrument was used to measure pharmacists’ self-efficacy. 31 The PECS instrument has 9-items scored on a 5-point scale (1-not at all confident to 5-extremely confident). The instrument also has two factors: Opening the Encounter (Cronbach's α = 0.75) and Health and Drug Information (Cronbach's α = 0.92).…”