Objective: To follow the guidelines of intercultural adaptation provided by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’(AAOS) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee, translating the original scale and evaluating the reli...Objective: To follow the guidelines of intercultural adaptation provided by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’(AAOS) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee, translating the original scale and evaluating the reliability and validity, and then to compile the Chinese version of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS) for nurses in emergency room in the mainland of China. Methods: This study consists of two phases of testing:(1) translation: forward translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pretesting;(2) psychometric properties: content and construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability. Results: The Chinese version of MAVAS and the original version showed excellent similarities and equivalence. The average Scalelevel Content Validity Index was 0.904, and the Item-level Content Validity Index ranged from 0.80 to 1.00. The construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL 8.7;χ2/df of the scale was 4.781<5, NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI>0.90, indicating that the scale’s factor structure model fitted better. The internal consistency was satisfactory (scale, Cronbach’s α=0.94;subscales, Cronbach’s α=0.74–0.90), and the test–retest reliability over 2 weeks was good (scale, Pearson’s coefficient=0.996;subscales, Pearson’s coefficient=0.801–0.963). Conclusions: The Chinese version of MAVAS had an excellent feasibility. It was found to be a valid and reliable tool to assess nurses’ attitude toward patients’ violence in emergency department.展开更多
文摘Objective: To follow the guidelines of intercultural adaptation provided by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’(AAOS) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee, translating the original scale and evaluating the reliability and validity, and then to compile the Chinese version of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS) for nurses in emergency room in the mainland of China. Methods: This study consists of two phases of testing:(1) translation: forward translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pretesting;(2) psychometric properties: content and construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability. Results: The Chinese version of MAVAS and the original version showed excellent similarities and equivalence. The average Scalelevel Content Validity Index was 0.904, and the Item-level Content Validity Index ranged from 0.80 to 1.00. The construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL 8.7;χ2/df of the scale was 4.781<5, NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI>0.90, indicating that the scale’s factor structure model fitted better. The internal consistency was satisfactory (scale, Cronbach’s α=0.94;subscales, Cronbach’s α=0.74–0.90), and the test–retest reliability over 2 weeks was good (scale, Pearson’s coefficient=0.996;subscales, Pearson’s coefficient=0.801–0.963). Conclusions: The Chinese version of MAVAS had an excellent feasibility. It was found to be a valid and reliable tool to assess nurses’ attitude toward patients’ violence in emergency department.
