Abstract:Ceiling effects for "Administration" "Effects" and "Overall Satisfaction" domains were also > 40%, which implied high levels of satisfaction in these areas. For CSPQ, ceiling effects for "Image Quality" was 33.3%. Internal consistency was strong in most instances [PSPQ: "Preparation" (α = .93), "Reaction to Agent" (α = .40); CSPQ and mCSPQ: "Preparation" (α = .99, .99) and "Administration" (α = .93, .92). Inter-item correlations for PSPQ ranged from -0.01 to 0.96, which are small to strong; CPSQ ranged from 0.… Show more
“…Adhering to rigorous translation and cross-cultural adaptation guidelines for non-technical skills rating instruments, a Finnish version of the T-NOTECHS scale has been developed. 12 The scale has proven to have strong structural validity and acceptable reliability for assessing performance in simulation-based multiprofessional trauma team resuscitations. 10 It has also been widely adopted for assessing simulation performance.…”
ObjectivesThis study investigated the costs of 2-hour multiprofessional in situ hospital trauma team simulation training and its effects on teams’ non-technical skills using the T-NOTECHS instrument.BackgroundSimulation is a feasible and effective teaching and learning method. Calculating the costs of simulated trauma team training in medical emergency situations can yield valuable information for improving its overall cost-effectiveness.DesignA prospective cohort study.SettingTrauma resuscitation room in Central Finland Hospital, Finland.Participants475 medical professionals in 81 consecutive, simulated trauma teams.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTeam simulation training costs in 2017 and 2018 were analysed in the following two phases: (1) start-up costs and (2) costs of education. Primary outcome measures were training costs per participant and training costs per team. Secondary outcome measures were non-technical skills, which were measured on a 5–25-point scale using the T-NOTECHS instrument.ResultsThe annual mean total costs of trauma team simulation training were €58 000 for 40 training sessions and 238 professionals. Mean cost per participant was €203. Mean cost per team was €1220. The annual costs of simulation training markedly decreased when at least 70–80 teams participated in the training. Mean change in T-NOTECHS score after simulation training was +2.86 points (95% CI 1.97 to 3.75;+14.5%).ConclusionsThe greater the number of teams trained per year, the lower the costs per trauma team. In this study, we developed an activity-based costing method to calculate the costs of trauma team simulation training to help stakeholders make decisions about whether to initiate or increase existing trauma team simulation training or to obtain these services elsewhere.
“…Adhering to rigorous translation and cross-cultural adaptation guidelines for non-technical skills rating instruments, a Finnish version of the T-NOTECHS scale has been developed. 12 The scale has proven to have strong structural validity and acceptable reliability for assessing performance in simulation-based multiprofessional trauma team resuscitations. 10 It has also been widely adopted for assessing simulation performance.…”
ObjectivesThis study investigated the costs of 2-hour multiprofessional in situ hospital trauma team simulation training and its effects on teams’ non-technical skills using the T-NOTECHS instrument.BackgroundSimulation is a feasible and effective teaching and learning method. Calculating the costs of simulated trauma team training in medical emergency situations can yield valuable information for improving its overall cost-effectiveness.DesignA prospective cohort study.SettingTrauma resuscitation room in Central Finland Hospital, Finland.Participants475 medical professionals in 81 consecutive, simulated trauma teams.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTeam simulation training costs in 2017 and 2018 were analysed in the following two phases: (1) start-up costs and (2) costs of education. Primary outcome measures were training costs per participant and training costs per team. Secondary outcome measures were non-technical skills, which were measured on a 5–25-point scale using the T-NOTECHS instrument.ResultsThe annual mean total costs of trauma team simulation training were €58 000 for 40 training sessions and 238 professionals. Mean cost per participant was €203. Mean cost per team was €1220. The annual costs of simulation training markedly decreased when at least 70–80 teams participated in the training. Mean change in T-NOTECHS score after simulation training was +2.86 points (95% CI 1.97 to 3.75;+14.5%).ConclusionsThe greater the number of teams trained per year, the lower the costs per trauma team. In this study, we developed an activity-based costing method to calculate the costs of trauma team simulation training to help stakeholders make decisions about whether to initiate or increase existing trauma team simulation training or to obtain these services elsewhere.
“…It was designed as a self-administered scored survey, and bilingual in both English and Malay. Items were initially developed in English and the translation process followed guidelines by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research (ISPOR) [ 14 ]. The translation process involved two linguists, two Public Health Physicians, and two academicians, to ensure that the result was accurate, rigorous, and followed good practices in cultural adaption [ 15 ].…”
Introduction/background
Dengue fever remains a public health threat despite being preventable. A solution to the constant problem of dengue infection will require active intervention and a paradigm shift. Assessing perceived risk and correlating it with the attitude and practice of the community will help in designing appropriate measures. However, possible instruments for these assessments come with limitations.
Objective
The aim is to develop and validate a new scoring-based questionnaire, using dual statistical approaches to measure risk perception, attitude, and practices (RPAP) related to dengue in the community.
Methods
The RPAP questionnaire was developed bilingually using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research (ISPOR) guidelines. Content analysis was reviewed scrupulously by four expert panels. The initial 35-item scale was tested among 253 Malaysian respondents recruited non-probabilistically via multiple online platforms. Two statistical methods were employed to measure the construct validity: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) as part of the Classical Test Theory (CTT) measurement, while Rasch Measurement Analysis (Rasch) was performed for the Item Response Theory (IRT) measurement. All results were cross-validated with their counterpart to ensure stability. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to obtain a model fit index.
Results
29 questions were retained after the final analysis. Both EFA and Rasch analysis detect multidimensionality. Nine latent factors were extracted from EFA, while only eight factors remained in the final model following CFA: 1) perceived susceptibility; 2) perceived severity; 3) perceived barrier; 4) perceived benefit; 5) cues to action; 6) self-efficacy; 7) attitude; and 8) practice. All items had adequate factor loadings and showed good internal consistency. The final model after CFA achieved a good fit with an RMSEA value of 0.061, SRMR of 0.068, PNFI of 0.649, and GFI of 0.996.
Conclusion
The RPAP questionnaire contains 29 items and is a reliable and accurate psychometric instrument for measuring the risk perception of dengue fever, attitude, and practice of the community in dengue prevention. The Rasch measurement provides additional rigour to complement the CTT analysis. This RPAP questionnaire is suitable for use in studies related to dengue prevention in the community.
“…The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process adhered to current guidelines on the translation of non-technical skills rating scales (Fig. 2) [9]Fig. 2Different phases of translation process for observational instruments.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is essential that an instrument can be easily translated into multiple foreign languages as it allows extensive, generalized research in the field of education. To fill in the methodological shortcomings for translation and adaptation of non-technical skills assessment instruments, the authors have produced robust translation and adaptation guidelines [9] based on the most pertinent literature concerning the topic of instrument translation and cross-cultural adaptation [10–21]. Knowledge of the translatability of an instrument to a foreign language is important to assure that the contents of the instrument would be comparable allowing benchmarking and comparison of international research outcomes.…”
BackgroundThe 5-item non-technical skills scale for trauma (T-NOTECHS) with five response categories is developed to assess non-technical skills in trauma team resuscitations. This validated instrument assesses behavioral aspects in teamwork. Outcome instruments should undergo a robust adaptation process followed by psychometric validation to maintain their measurement properties when translated into different languages. The translatability of the T-NOTECHS into a non-Anglo-Saxon language has not been thus far unraveled. The authors aimed to assess whether the T-NOTECHS would be translatable into a non-Anglo-Saxon language and to investigate its psychometric properties for simulated multi-professional trauma team resuscitations.MethodsThe T-NOTECHS (scores: 1 = poor; 5 = excellent) was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Finnish. Data was derived from 61 real hospital trauma team resuscitation simulations with 193 multi-professional participants. Floor-ceiling effects, internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability were analyzed. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to test construct validity.ResultsAfter pre-testing, minor changes were made to the Finnish translation of the T-NOTECHS. Mean scores of two raters were 3.76 and 4.01, respectively. The T-NOTECHS instrument showed no floor-effect either in single items or in the total score. The total score of the T-NOTECHS instrument showed a percentage of maximum scores of 1.6 and 4.9% by the Raters 1 and 2, respectively. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.70 with inter-item correlation of 0.54. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.54 and coefficient of repeatability 1.53. The T-NOTECHS loaded on one factor.ConclusionsThe T-NOTECHS translated well into a difficult non-Anglo-Saxon language. The rigorous adaptation process used here can be recommended in the translation of observational performance assessment instruments. The translated version demonstrated fair reliability and good construct validity for assessing team performance in simulated multi-professional trauma team resuscitations. The translated T-NOTECHS instrument can be used to assess the efficacy of simulated in-situ trauma team resuscitations allowing benchmarking and international collaboration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
