• KSAN
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission

Korean J Adult Nurs : Korean Journal of Adult Nursing

OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button
Search
Advanced Search
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Page Path

Original Article

Validity and Reliability Test of the Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale

Jiyoung Kang1, Heiyoung Kang2, Nanyeon Kim2, Mijung Lee2, Youjine Kim2, Juhyeon Kim2, Sujeong Yeo2, Yunye Seo3, E. Eunyoung Suh4
Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2016;28(2):191-201.
Published online: April 30, 2016

1College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul

2Department of Nursing, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul

3Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, Wonju

4College of Nursing · Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Suh, E, Eunyoung College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 103 Jonro-gu, Dehack-ro, Seoul 03080, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8484, Fax: +82-2-740-8484, E-mail: esuh@snu.ac.kr
• Received: February 6, 2016   • Accepted: April 19, 2016

Copyright © 2016 Korean Society of Adult Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 17 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 4 Crossref
prev next

Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF
  • Purpose
    The purpose of this methodological study was to examine the validity and reliability of a translated Korean version of The Oncology Patients’ Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale.
  • Methods
    The translated scale was pilot tested and then administered to 360 patients with cancer. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were utilized to assess the factor structure. Internal consistency reliability was determined using coefficient ⍺.
  • Results
    Two of the 40 items were deleted with a principal component method of exploratory factor analysis because they did not meet the factor-loading criterion. The 38 items were again analyzed and, four factors were validated (KMO=.96, Bartlett x2=10809.81, df=780, p<.001). The four factors accounted for 60.9% of the variance. Factor loadings of the scale on the four subscales ranged from .65 to .91. The scale showed reliable internal consistency with a Cronbach's ⍺, total 38 items (⍺=.96) in four subscales: individualization (18 items, ⍺=.96), proficiency (10, .91), responsiveness (7, .90), and coordination (3, .80).
  • Conclusion
    The findings of this study demonstrate that the scale has satisfactory construct validity and reliability to measure quality of cancer nursing care from the patient's perspective in Korea.
  • Key Words: Patient-centered care; Oncology nursing; Quality of health care; Validity and reliability; Measures
Table 1.
General Characteristics of the Participants (N=360)
Characteristics Categories n (%) or M±SD
Cancer type Breast cancer 223 (61.9)
Thyroid cancer 137 (38.1)
Age (year) (Range: 25~75)   51.4±9.9
20~29 18 (5.0)
30~39 42 (11.7)
40~49 117 (32.5)
50~59 114 (31.7)
60~69 57 (15.8)
≥70 12 (3.3)
Marital status Single 13 (3.6)
Married 315 (87.5)
Divorced 14 (3.9)
Others 18 (5.0)
Number of children 0 56 (15.6)
1 80 (22.2)
2 175 (48.6)
≥3 49 (13.6)
Religion Christian 116 (32.2)
Catholic 69 (19.2)
Buddhist 73 (20.3)
Others (none include) 102 (28.3)
Education ≤Middle school 77 (21.4)
High school 132 (36.7)
College 143 (39.7)
≥Graduate school 8 (2.2)
Perceived economic status Good 13 (3.6)
Fair 262 (72.8)
Poor 31 (8.6)
Non response 54 (15.0)
Table 2.
Item Analysis and Factor Analysis of the OPPQNCS-K (N=360)
Item
The nurses		 M±SD A B C Factor loadings Com. EV (%)
1 2 3 4
Individualization 18 items 5.26±0.75 　 　 .96 　 　 　 　 　 47.9
personalized my care to my particular needs. 5.29±0.93 .73 .96 .96 .74
knew how to help me when things were bothering me. 5.36±0.94 .78 .96 .85 .76
discussed care options with me. 4.90±1.36 .68 .96 .85 .63
encouraged me to actively participate in my care. 5.28±1.02 .79 .96 .82 .74
knew how I was coping. 5.22±0.99 .78 .96 .78 .73
spent time with me when I needed them. 4.86±1.30 .70 .96 .77 .63
knew how I was feeling. 5.06±1.02 .77 .96 .76 .70
helped me get the information I wanted. 5.40±0.88 .67 .96 .70 .56
correctly anticipated problems I might have because of my conditions. 5.18±0.99 .74 .96 .67 .63
made it easy to establish the relationship I wanted with them. 5.15±1.03 .73 .96 .67 .63
tried to help when I was having a difficult time. 5.31±1.02 .74 .96 .60 .64
remembered things about me. 5.32±0.94 .70 .96 .60 .56
knew what I had been through. 5.20±1.06 .70 .96 .60 .56
did what they could to make me comfortable. 5.50±0.80 .72 .96 .56 .65
arranged for the same nurses to care for me regularly. 5.41±0.95 .59 .96 .54 .51
gave me support I needed. 5.56±0.72 .67 .96 .52 .58
knew how to help me in ways that I liked. 5.38±0.82 .71 .96 .50 .61
comforted me when I needed it. 5.35±0.88 .68 .96 .46 .52
Proficiency 10 items 5.64±0.46     .91 　   　 　   6.4 　
were skillful. 5.74±0.53 .52 .96 .78 .55
knew how to care for someone with my condition. 5.62±0.61 .54 .96 .78 .58
gave me accurate explanations about my care. 5.70±0.56 .52 .96 .74 .54
took time to answer my questions. 5.73±0.54 .56 .96 .73 .55
knew how to help me. 5.66±0.59 .60 .96 .67 .59
knew what they were doing. 5.76±0.53 .56 .96 .65 .57
knew made sure I had what I needed. 5.47±0.73 .64 .96 .57 .55
checked on me often enough. 5.49±0.75 .65 .96 .56 .59
addressed my needs promptly. 5.62±0.69 .59 .96 .46 .48
respected my dignity. 5.59±0.67 .72 .96 .43 .68
Responsiveness 7 items 5.56±0.59     .90 　 　 　 　 　 3.7 　
were kind to me. 5.74±0.56 .65 .96 .77 .67
made me feel like I mattered. 5.32±0.95 .71 .96 .64 .67
were gentle with me. 5.70±0.59 .68 .96 .63 .65
reacted quickly when something important happened. 5.65±0.65 .66 .96 .59 .58
came when I needed them. 5.64±0.64 .60 .96 .55 .56
took my concerns seriously. 5.36±0.99 .76 .96 .53 .69
paid attention to what I said. 5.52±0.78 .69 .96 .52 .63
Coordination 3 items 3.90±1.61     .80 　 　 　 　 　 2.9 　
told me which nurse was primarily responsible for coordinating my care. 3.92±1.88 .55 .96 .83 .81
showed me they cared about my family and friends. 3.78±1.95 .31 .96 .81 .59
told me which nurse was taking over when they were not there. 4.01±1.85 .62 .96 .71 .74
Total 38 items 5.31±0.62     .96           60.9

KMO=.996; Bartlett x2=108099.81;df=780;; p＜.00

A=corrected item-total correlation; B=Cronbach's ⍺ if item deleted; C=Cronbach's ⍺; Com.=communality; EV=explained variance; OPPQNCS-K=Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale; Factor 1=Individualization; Factor 2=Proficiency; Factor 3=Responsiveness; Factor 4=Coordination.

Table 3.
Model Fit Indices for OPPQNCS-K
Variables x2 df p RMSEA
OPPQNCS-K 1,905.31 659 ＜.001 .07
Table 4.
Convergent Validity of OPPQNCS-K
Variables Path Standardized estimates (β) SE CR p Average variance extracted Construct reliability
Quality of nursing care → Individualization .90 .01 8.08 ＜.001 .69 .89
→ Proficiency .83 .01 10.69 ＜.001
→ Responsiveness .91 .01 7.51 ＜.001
→ Coordination .65      
Criteria ＞.50   ＞1.96   ＞.50 ＞.70
Result yes   yes   yes yes

CR=critical ratio.

Table 5.
Discriminant Validity of OPPQNCS-K
  Individualization Proficiency Responsiveness Coordination
Individualization .58†     .52†
Proficiency .54‡ .73†  
Responsiveness .66‡ .64‡ .72†
Coordination .27‡ .12‡ .18‡
Criteria AVE＞Ф2 Criteria

†Average Variance Extracted (AVE);

‡Square of Correlation Coefficient= (r2)=Ф2

  • 1.Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
  • 2.Epstein RM, Street RL JrPatient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. NIH Publication: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Report No.: 07-6225..
  • 3.Suhonen R, Schmidt LA, Radwin L. Measuring individualized nursing care: assessment of reliability and validity of three scales. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007;59(1):77-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04282.x.
  • 4.Radwin LE, Farquhar SL, Knowles MN, Virchick BG. Cancer patients'descriptions of their nursing care. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2005;50(2):162-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03375.x.
  • 5.Lee MA, Yom Y-H. A comparative study of patients'and nurses'perceptions of the quality of nursing services, satisfaction and intent to revisit the hospital: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2007;44(4):545-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.006.
  • 6.Radwin L, Alster K, Rubin KM. Development and testing of the oncology patients' perceptions of the quality of nursing care scale. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2003;30(2):283-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1188/03.onf.283-290.
  • 7.Kitson A, Marshall A, Bassett K, Zeitz K. What are the core elements of patient centred care? a narrative review and synthesis of the literature from health policy, medicine and nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(1):4-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06064.x.
  • 8.Izumi S, Baggs JG, Knafl KA. Quality nursing care for hospitalized patients with advanced illness: concept development. Research in Nursing & Health. 2010;33(4):299-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20391.
  • 9.Larson PJ, Ferketich SL. Patients' satisfaction with nurses' caring during hospitalization. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1993;15(6):690-703.
  • 10.Mitchell PH, Heinrich J, Moritz P, Hinshaw AS. Measurement into practice: summary and recommendations. Medical Care. 1997;35(11):NS124-7.
  • 11.Köberich S, Farin E. A systematic review of instruments measuring patients' perceptions of patient centred nursing care. Nursing Inquiry. 2015;22(2):106-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nin.12078.
  • 12.Sidani S, Collins L, Harbman P, MacMillan K, Reeves S, Hurlock Chorostecki C, et al. Development of a measure to assess healthcare providers'implementation of patient centered care. Worldviews on Evidence Based Nursing. 2014;11(4):248-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12047.
  • 13.Radwin L. Oncology patients' perceptions of quality nursing care. Research in Nursing & Health. 2000;23(3):179-90.
  • 14.Radwin LE, Cabral HJ, Wilkes G. Relationships between patient centered cancer nursing interventions and desired health outcomes in the context of the health care system. Research in Nursing & Health. 2009;32(1):4-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20302.
  • 15.National Cancer Center. 2013 Cancer registry statistics in Korea. Seoul; Ministry of Health & Welfare, Korea Central Cancer Registry: National Cancer Center; 2015.
  • 16.DeVellis RFScale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2003.
  • 17.Comrey AL. Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1988;56(5):754-61.
  • 18.Kim GSStructural equation modeling analysis: Amos 18.0. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co; 2010.
  • 19.Schmitt TA. Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2011;29(4):304-21.
  • 20.Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970;1(3):185-216.
  • 21.Duffy ME. Translating instruments into other languages: basic considerations. Clinical Nurse Specialist. 2006;20(5):225-6.
  • 22.Lee E, Lim N, Park H, Lee I, Kim J, Bae J, et alNursing research and statistical analysis. Paju: Soomoomsa Publishing; 2009.
  • 23.Yu J-PThe concept and understanding of structural equation modeling. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co; 2012.
  • 24.Kang H. A guide on the use of factor analysis in the assessment of construct validity. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2013;43(5):587-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.5.587.
  • 25.Tak JPsychological testing: an understanding of development and evaluation method. 2nd ed. Seoul: Hakjisa; 2007.
  • 26.Kang J, Suh EE. Perceptions of quality of patient-centered nursing care among women with breast cancer. Perspectives in Nursing Science. 2015;12(2):115-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.16952/pns.2015.12.2.115.
  • 27.Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31-6.
  • 28.Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1988;16(1):74-94.
  • 29.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(1):39-50.
  • 30.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IHPsychometric theory. 3rd ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
  • 31.Larrabee J, Bolden L. Defining patient-perceived quality of nursing care. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2001;16(1):34-60.
  • 32.Sofaer S, Firminger K. Patient perceptions of the quality of health services. Annual Reviews of Public Health. 2005;26:513-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.050503.153958.
  • 33.Williams SA. Quality and care: patients' perceptions. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 1998;12(6):18-25.
  • 34.Lee T, Kang KH, Ko YK, Cho S-H, Kim EY. Issues and challenges of nurse workforce policy: a critical review and implication. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2014;20(1):106-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2014.20.1.106.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • The Nursing-Home Care Quality Perceived Levels from Patients and Caregivers: An Explanatory Study
      Elsa Vitale, Rocco Mea, Yun-Chen Chang
      Patient Preference and Adherence.2023; Volume 17: 1237.     CrossRef
    • The Quality of Patient-centered Nursing Care Perceived by Cancer Patients Who Have Had an Operation
      Keum Hyun Wang, Eun Young Park
      Asian Oncology Nursing.2021; 21(2): 65.     CrossRef
    • A scale to measure nurses’ and providers’ patient centered care in primary care settings
      Laurel E. Radwin, Howard Cabral, Barbara G. Bokhour, Marjory Nealon Seibert, Kelly Stolzmann, Ann Annis, David C. Mohr
      Patient Education and Counseling.2019; 102(12): 2302.     CrossRef
    • Analysis of a Survey on Public Perceptions and Preferences of the “Smart Green Office” to Help Encourage Creation of the Program
      Sang Im Oh, Sung Won Cho, Ja Hee Lee, Ae Kyung Lee
      Flower Research Journal.2019; 27(1): 60.     CrossRef

    Download Citation

    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

    Format:

    Include:

    Validity and Reliability Test of the Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2016;28(2):191-201.   Published online April 30, 2016
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2016.28.2.191
    Download Citation
    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
    Format:
    • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
    • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
    Include:
    • Citation for the content below
    Validity and Reliability Test of the Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2016;28(2):191-201.   Published online April 30, 2016
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2016.28.2.191
    Close

    Related articles

    Validity and Reliability Test of the Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale
    Validity and Reliability Test of the Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale

    General Characteristics of the Participants (N=360)

    Characteristics Categories n (%) or M±SD
    Cancer type Breast cancer 223 (61.9)
    Thyroid cancer 137 (38.1)
    Age (year) (Range: 25~75)   51.4±9.9
    20~29 18 (5.0)
    30~39 42 (11.7)
    40~49 117 (32.5)
    50~59 114 (31.7)
    60~69 57 (15.8)
    ≥70 12 (3.3)
    Marital status Single 13 (3.6)
    Married 315 (87.5)
    Divorced 14 (3.9)
    Others 18 (5.0)
    Number of children 0 56 (15.6)
    1 80 (22.2)
    2 175 (48.6)
    ≥3 49 (13.6)
    Religion Christian 116 (32.2)
    Catholic 69 (19.2)
    Buddhist 73 (20.3)
    Others (none include) 102 (28.3)
    Education ≤Middle school 77 (21.4)
    High school 132 (36.7)
    College 143 (39.7)
    ≥Graduate school 8 (2.2)
    Perceived economic status Good 13 (3.6)
    Fair 262 (72.8)
    Poor 31 (8.6)
    Non response 54 (15.0)

    Item Analysis and Factor Analysis of the OPPQNCS-K (N=360)

    Item
    The nurses    		 M±SD A B C Factor loadings Com. EV (%)
    1 2 3 4
    Individualization 18 items 5.26±0.75 　 　 .96 　 　 　 　 　 47.9
    personalized my care to my particular needs. 5.29±0.93 .73 .96 .96 .74
    knew how to help me when things were bothering me. 5.36±0.94 .78 .96 .85 .76
    discussed care options with me. 4.90±1.36 .68 .96 .85 .63
    encouraged me to actively participate in my care. 5.28±1.02 .79 .96 .82 .74
    knew how I was coping. 5.22±0.99 .78 .96 .78 .73
    spent time with me when I needed them. 4.86±1.30 .70 .96 .77 .63
    knew how I was feeling. 5.06±1.02 .77 .96 .76 .70
    helped me get the information I wanted. 5.40±0.88 .67 .96 .70 .56
    correctly anticipated problems I might have because of my conditions. 5.18±0.99 .74 .96 .67 .63
    made it easy to establish the relationship I wanted with them. 5.15±1.03 .73 .96 .67 .63
    tried to help when I was having a difficult time. 5.31±1.02 .74 .96 .60 .64
    remembered things about me. 5.32±0.94 .70 .96 .60 .56
    knew what I had been through. 5.20±1.06 .70 .96 .60 .56
    did what they could to make me comfortable. 5.50±0.80 .72 .96 .56 .65
    arranged for the same nurses to care for me regularly. 5.41±0.95 .59 .96 .54 .51
    gave me support I needed. 5.56±0.72 .67 .96 .52 .58
    knew how to help me in ways that I liked. 5.38±0.82 .71 .96 .50 .61
    comforted me when I needed it. 5.35±0.88 .68 .96 .46 .52
    Proficiency 10 items 5.64±0.46     .91 　   　 　   6.4 　
    were skillful. 5.74±0.53 .52 .96 .78 .55
    knew how to care for someone with my condition. 5.62±0.61 .54 .96 .78 .58
    gave me accurate explanations about my care. 5.70±0.56 .52 .96 .74 .54
    took time to answer my questions. 5.73±0.54 .56 .96 .73 .55
    knew how to help me. 5.66±0.59 .60 .96 .67 .59
    knew what they were doing. 5.76±0.53 .56 .96 .65 .57
    knew made sure I had what I needed. 5.47±0.73 .64 .96 .57 .55
    checked on me often enough. 5.49±0.75 .65 .96 .56 .59
    addressed my needs promptly. 5.62±0.69 .59 .96 .46 .48
    respected my dignity. 5.59±0.67 .72 .96 .43 .68
    Responsiveness 7 items 5.56±0.59     .90 　 　 　 　 　 3.7 　
    were kind to me. 5.74±0.56 .65 .96 .77 .67
    made me feel like I mattered. 5.32±0.95 .71 .96 .64 .67
    were gentle with me. 5.70±0.59 .68 .96 .63 .65
    reacted quickly when something important happened. 5.65±0.65 .66 .96 .59 .58
    came when I needed them. 5.64±0.64 .60 .96 .55 .56
    took my concerns seriously. 5.36±0.99 .76 .96 .53 .69
    paid attention to what I said. 5.52±0.78 .69 .96 .52 .63
    Coordination 3 items 3.90±1.61     .80 　 　 　 　 　 2.9 　
    told me which nurse was primarily responsible for coordinating my care. 3.92±1.88 .55 .96 .83 .81
    showed me they cared about my family and friends. 3.78±1.95 .31 .96 .81 .59
    told me which nurse was taking over when they were not there. 4.01±1.85 .62 .96 .71 .74
    Total 38 items 5.31±0.62     .96           60.9

    KMO=.996; Bartlett x2=108099.81;df=780;; p＜.00

    A=corrected item-total correlation; B=Cronbach's ⍺ if item deleted; C=Cronbach's ⍺; Com.=communality; EV=explained variance; OPPQNCS-K=Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale; Factor 1=Individualization; Factor 2=Proficiency; Factor 3=Responsiveness; Factor 4=Coordination.

    Model Fit Indices for OPPQNCS-K

    Variables x2 df p RMSEA
    OPPQNCS-K 1,905.31 659 ＜.001 .07

    Convergent Validity of OPPQNCS-K

    Variables Path Standardized estimates (β) SE CR p Average variance extracted Construct reliability
    Quality of nursing care → Individualization .90 .01 8.08 ＜.001 .69 .89
    → Proficiency .83 .01 10.69 ＜.001
    → Responsiveness .91 .01 7.51 ＜.001
    → Coordination .65      
    Criteria ＞.50   ＞1.96   ＞.50 ＞.70
    Result yes   yes   yes yes

    CR=critical ratio.

    Discriminant Validity of OPPQNCS-K

      Individualization Proficiency Responsiveness Coordination
    Individualization .58†     .52†
    Proficiency .54‡ .73†  
    Responsiveness .66‡ .64‡ .72†
    Coordination .27‡ .12‡ .18‡
    Criteria AVE＞Ф2 Criteria

    †Average Variance Extracted (AVE);

    ‡Square of Correlation Coefficient= (r2)=Ф2
    Table 1. General Characteristics of the Participants (N=360)

    Table 2. Item Analysis and Factor Analysis of the OPPQNCS-K (N=360)

    KMO=.996; Bartlett x2=108099.81;df=780;; p＜.00

    A=corrected item-total correlation; B=Cronbach's ⍺ if item deleted; C=Cronbach's ⍺; Com.=communality; EV=explained variance; OPPQNCS-K=Korean Version of the Oncology Patients' Perception of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale; Factor 1=Individualization; Factor 2=Proficiency; Factor 3=Responsiveness; Factor 4=Coordination.

    Table 3. Model Fit Indices for OPPQNCS-K

    Table 4. Convergent Validity of OPPQNCS-K

    CR=critical ratio.

    Table 5. Discriminant Validity of OPPQNCS-K

    Average Variance Extracted (AVE);

    Square of Correlation Coefficient= (r2)=Ф2

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Table 4.

    Table 5.

    Korean J Adult Nurs : Korean Journal of Adult Nursing

    ABOUT

    BROWSE ARTICLES 

    EDITORIAL POLICY

    FOR CONTRIBUTORS  

    © Korean Society of Adult Nursing.
    TOP