German translation, cultural adaptation and testing of the Person‐centred Practice Inventory – Staff (PCPI‐S)

Abstract

Aim The aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the PCPI‐S into German and to eventually test its psychometric properties in long‐term care settings. Background Person‐centred practice has been widely adopted internationally as a best‐practice model in nursing and health care. To ensure a sustainable implementation of this practice and to successively promote it, person‐centred practice should be evaluated on a regular basis. The Person‐centred Practice Inventory—Staff (PCPI‐S), which is based on McCormack & McCance's Person‐centred Practice Framework, is a new instrument for this purpose by assessing perceptions of person‐centredness among healthcare staff. Design A two‐phase research design was used involving the translation and cultural adaption of the PCPI‐S from English to German (PCPI‐S‐G; Phase 1) and a quantitative cross‐sectional survey (Phase 2). Methods Construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's α . Results Phase 1 was conducted using an internationally recommended checklist for translations and cultural adaptations. In Phase 2, the PCPI‐S‐G was tested in 15 residential care homes in Austria with a sample of 255 staff members. The CFA showed good construct validity and supported the theoretical framework. The internal consistency for the three constructs of the PCPI‐S was excellent, revealing Cronbach's α ‐scores from 0.902–0.941.

German Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Person-Centred Practice Inventory - Staff (PCPI-S)

“…Cronbach's alpha of the complete PCPI-S aG instrument was judged as excellent. This is similar to the Austrian translation (Weis et al, 2020). The model t was positive overall, for all constructs, which is comparable with the other translations (Weis et al, 2020;Bing-Jonsson et al, 2018).…”

“…This is similar to the Austrian translation (Weis et al, 2020). The model t was positive overall, for all constructs, which is comparable with the other translations (Weis et al, 2020;Bing-Jonsson et al, 2018). Maneesriwongul & Dixon (2004) recommended a minimum standard for applying an instrument developed in another language.…”

“…Two translations have already been published. The rst was in the Norwegian language (Bing-Jonsson et al, 2018) and the second was a translation into the German language by an Austrian research team (Weis et al, 2020). The Austrian translation has been culturally adapted and tested in a large long-term care setting.…”

Person-Centered Practice in Hospitalized Older Adults with Chronic Illness: Clinical Study Protocol

“…These are professional competency, developed interpersonal skills, self-knowledge, clarity of beliefs and values, commitment to job, appropriate skill mix, shared decision-making systems, effective staff relationships, power sharing, physical environment, supportive organizational systems, potentials for innovation and risk taking, working with patients’ beliefs and values, sharing decision making, engaging authentically, being sympathetically present, and providing holistic care [ 6 ]. The instrument has been reported to be valid and reliable in other studies [ 22 , 23 , 24 ].…”

Healthcare provider person-centred practice: relationships between prerequisites, care environment and care processes using structural equation modelling

“…A Norwegian study utilising the translated instrument (n = 258) found that 6 out of the 59 items failed to achieve acceptable loadings (0.35) although 13 out of the 17 constructs had acceptable Cronbach's alpha score (> 0.6). Another study conducted in Germany found 4 items failed to achieve acceptable factor loadings (0.6) while the internal consistency was found to be high (Cronbach's alpha > 0.9) [35]. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the studies indicated the framework had acceptable goodness of fit [34][35][36].…”