Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool

Abstract

The Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool (CPSET) assesses key characteristics of well-organised care processes in hospitals from an interprofessional team perspective. The present study investigated the psychometric properties of the CPSET in terms of factor structure, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability in Norwegian language and context. After a pilot test, the Norwegian version of the questionnaire was administered as a web form to 501 health professionals in public general hospitals and mental health specialist services; 301 completed forms (response rate 60%) were returned, and 268 (54%) forms representing 27 care processes (19 from somatic care and 8 from mental healthcare) were included in the valid sample. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the original five-factor structure. All model fit indices, including the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), which is independent of the χ-test, met the criteria for an acceptable model fit. Internal consistencies within sub-scales as measured by Cronbach's alpha were high (range 0.83-0.94). As expected, some redundancy between factors existed (in particular among the PO (Patient-focused organisation), COR (Coordination of the care process), COM (Communication with patient and family), and PO (Follow-up of the care process) factors). In conclusion, the Norwegian CPSET scale showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of convergent validity and reliability, and fit indices from the CFA confirmed the original factor structure. Based on these findings, we recommend the Norwegian version of the CPSET for use in the assessment of interprofessional teamwork in care processes in specialist healthcare.

Communication and Relational Ties in Inter-Professional Teams in Norwegian Specialized Health Care: A Multicentre Study of Relational Coordination

“…However, the team members reported this information inconsistently. This discrepancy may be explained by respondents’ interpretation of the term “clinical procedure”: it may be understood differently from one respondent to another [30]; it may also reflect individual respondents being unaware of the existence of a particular procedure. Further, respondents who were aware of the existence of the clinical procedure may not actually have used it in the care process.…”

“…For use in the present study, the Relational Coordination Survey was translated to Norwegian and piloted on 10 health-care professionals within a hospital by Størkson et al [30]. An authorized translation agency translated the US-English version of the Relational Coordination Survey into Norwegian language.…”

“…The team members (N = 503) received information about the project by e-mail, including a link to the Relational Coordination Survey in Corporater Surveyor, version 3.3 (Corporater Inc., Norway) [30]. In all, 301 health-care professionals (60%) responded.…”

Organiseringa av 22 pasientforløp i Helse Vest

“…We have recently shown that the Norwegian version of the CPSET has acceptable psychometric attributes (convergent validity, reliability) (32). Other translated instruments that measure coordination and communication are the Relational Coordination Survey (RCS) (36,37) and the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (38).…”

“…As a pilot, we first tested the translated version using ten professionals in the specialist health service (32). These came from various disciplines at a medium-size hospital in Western Norway Regional Health Authority.…”