Validity of Korean Version of Clinical Decision Making Short Form Scale

Myoung Soo Kim; Hyun Kyeong Jung

doi:10.7475/kjan.2014.26.4.403

Articles

Page Path

Original Article

Validity of Korean Version of Clinical Decision Making Short Form Scale

Myoung Soo Kim¹, Hyun Kyeong Jung²

Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2014;26(4):403-412.
Published online: August 31, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.4.403

¹Department of Nursing, Pukyong National University, Busan

²Nursing Administration and Education Team, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea

Corresponding author: Jung, Hyun Kyeong Nursing Administration and Education Team, Pusan National University Hospital, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 602-739, Korea. Tel: +82-51-240-7092, Fax: +82-51-240-7923, E-mail: hyunk-jung@hanmail.net

• Received: March 19, 2014 • Accepted: August 1, 2014

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.

24 Views
0 Download
6 Crossref
7 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to validate the Korean version of shortened Nursing Decision-Making Instrument developed by Lauri & Salanterä (2002).
Methods
The subjects were 247 nurses working in eight hospitals of Korea. Data were collected by questionnaires from June to July, 2012 and were analyzed by Principal Component Analysis for construct validity and Cronbach's ⍺ coefficient for reliability.
Results
Factor loadings of the four subscales ranged from .32 to .73. The explained variance from the four factors was 48.54% of the total variance. The factors were named 'implementation of plan, monitoring and evaluation', 'plans of action', 'data collection', and 'data processing and identification'. The first factor consisted of 6 items which explained 13.21% of the total variance and the second factor contained 8 items. The Cronbach's ⍺ coefficients of the four subscales were from .64 to .81.
Conclusion
The Korean version of the shortened Nursing Decision-Making Instrument has satisfactory construct validity and reliability. However, that the scores of the analytic items weren't reversed unlike the analysis method of the original tools is the biggest limitation of this study. In addition, based on the fact that there were several discrepancies for item interpretation of Korean comparing to the findings of the instrument development study, repetitive researches would be suggested.
Key Words: Decision making; Reliability and validity; Factor analysis

Table 1.

General Characteristics of the Participants (N=247)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%)
Gender	Male	6 (2.4)
Gender	Female	241 (97.6)
Age (year)	21~25	89 (36.0)
	26~30	84 (34.0)
	31~35	58 (23.5)
	36~40	16 (6.5)
	≥41	16 (6.5)
Marital status	Married	71 (28.7)
Marital status	Single	176 (71.3)
Educational level	Diploma	96 (38.9)
	BSN	140 (56.7)
	Master and doctoral	11 (4.4)
	degree
Work unit	Medical & surgical	170 (68.8)
	nursing unit
	Intensive care unit	29 (11.7)
	Emergency room	21 (8.5)
	Others^†	27 (11.0)
Length of work as a nurse (year)	≤3	88 (35.6)
	4~5	55 (22.3)
	6~10	48 (19.4)
	11~20	44 (17.8)
	≥21	12 (4.9)
Position	Head nurse	10 (4.0)
	Charge nurse	19 (7.7)
	Staff nurse	218 (88.3)

^†Psychiatric (6), Pediatrics (5), Rehabilitation (5), Outpatient (3), Anesthesia (2), Dentistry (2), Gynecology and Obstetrics (2), Artificial kidney room (1), Hospice care (1).

Table 2.

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 24 item Nursing Decision Making Instrument

No. of item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
22	.690
23	.677
21	.620
20	.606
24	.506
19	.511
11		.622
18		.620
17		.564
16		.468
13		.445
9		.419
15		.415
14		.414
7			.700
5			.655
8			.622
3			.569
4			.529
1			.400
2			.322
12				.733
10				.723
6				.610
Eigen value	3.17	3.09	2.82	2.58
Variance	13.21	11.86	11.73	10.73
Cumulative variance	13.21	26.07	37.81	48.54

Table 3.

Each Factor's Name and Reliability

Factor	Name	Number of items	Cronbach's ⍺ coefficient
Factor 1	Implementation of plan, monitoring, and evaluation	6	.78
Factor 2	Plan for action	8	.81
Factor 3	Data collection	7	.71
Factor 4	Data processing and identification	3	.64
Total		24	.89

REFERENCES

Bakalis N. A., Watson R.. 2005;Nurses' decision-making in clinical practice. Nursing Standard. 19(23):33–-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns2005.02.19.23.33.c3805.
Article
Banning M.. 2008;A review of clinical decision making: Models and current research. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 17(2):187–-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01791.x.
Bjo̸rk I. T., Hamilton G. A.. 2011;Clinical decision making of nurses working in hospital settings. Nursing Research and Practice. 2011:1–-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/524918.
Cherry B., Jacob S. R.. 2005. Contemporary nursing: Issue, trend, & management. 3rd. ed.. Philadelphia: Mosby.
Choi H. J.. 2001;Public health nurses' decision making models and their knowledge structure. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 31(2):328–-339.
Article
PDF
Djalali A., Castren M., Hosseinijenab V., Khatib M., Ohlen G., Kurland L.. 2012;Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) performance in Iran: Decision making during disasters. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 20(14):1–-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-20-14.
Article
Dunn J. D.. 1998;Powerlessness regarding health-service barriers: Construction of an instrument. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications. 9(s2):136–-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-618X.1998.tb00183.x.
Girot E. A.. 2000;Graduate nurses: Critical thinkers or better decision makers? Journal of Advanced Nursing. 31(2):288–-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01298.x.
Article
Gover V. F.. 1971;The development and testing of a nursing performance simulation instrument Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina..
Harbison J.. 2001;Clinical decision making in nursing: Theoretical perspectives and their relevance to practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 35(1):126–-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01816.x.
Article
Hoffman K. A., Aitken L. M., Duffield C.. 2009;A comparison of novice and expert nurses' cue collection during clinical decision-making: Verbal protocol analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 46(10):1335–-1344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.04.001.
Article
Hutchins C., Glenn L. L.. 2011;Reasoning style in clinical decision making. Research Evidence Evaluation. 2:7–-9.
Hwang I. J.. 2004;Clinical decision making patterns of pediatric nurses. Korean Parent-Child Health Journal. 15(1):20–-32.
Jenkins H. M.. 1985;A research tool for measuring perceptions of clinical decision making. Journal of Professional Nursing. 1(4):221–-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(85)80159-9.
Article
Joseph D. H., Matrone J., Osborne E.. 1988;Actual decision making: Factors that determine practices in clinical settings. The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. 20(2):19–-31.
Lamond D., Crow R., Chase J., Doggen K., Swinkels M.. 1996;Information sources used in decision making: Considerations for simulation development. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 33(1):47–-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-7489(95)00064-X.
Lauri S., Salanterä S.. 1995;Decision-making models of Finnish nurses and public health nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 21(3):520–-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb02736.x.
Article
Lauri S., Salanterä S.. 2002;Developing an instrument to measure and describe clinical decision making in different nursing fields. Journal of Professional Nursing. 18(2):93–-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2002.32344.
Article
Leonard M. S., Cimino M., Shaha S., McDougal S., Pilliod J., Brodsky L.. 2006;Risk reduction for adverse drug events through sequential implementation of patient safety initiatives in a children's hospital. Pediatrics. 118(4):e1124–-1129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-3183.
Article
PDF
Ng L. S., Curley M. A.. 2012;"One more thing to think about..." Cognitive burden experienced by intensive care unit nurses when implementing a tight glucose control protocol. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 6(1):58–-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/193229681200600108.
Nunnally J. C.. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Neill E. S., Dluhy N. M., Fortier P. J., Michel H. E.. 2004;Knowledge acquisition, synthesis, and validation: A model for decision support systems. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 47(2):134–-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03072.x.
Pretorius A., Cilliers P. J.. 2007;Development of a mental workload index: A systems approach. Ergonomics. 50(9):1503–-1515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130701379055.
Article
Rhodes B.. 1985;Occupational ideology and clinical decision-making in British nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 22(3):241–-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-7489(85)90007-0.
Article
Shin K. R.. 1998;Critical thinking ability and clinical decision-making skills among senior nursing students in associate and baccalaureate programmes in Korea. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 27(2):414–-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00499.x.
Sung M. H., Eum O. B.. 2010;Professional autonomy and clinical decision making ability in clinical nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 17(2):274–-281.
Tanner C. A.. 2006;Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgement in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education. 45(6):204–-211.
Tilden V. P., Nelson C. A., May B. A.. 1990;Use of qualitative methods to enhance content validity. Nursing Research. 39(3):172–-175.
Article
Wang Y., Chien W. T., Twinn S.. 2012;An exploratory study on baccalaureate-prepared nurses' perceptions regarding clinical decision-making in mainland China. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 21(11-12):1706–-1715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03925.x.
Yang B. W.. 2002. Understand and usage of multivariate data analysis. Seoul: Hack-Ji Inc.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Development of a Korean clinical decision-making ability scale for hospital nurses
Sunyoung Oh, Minkyung Gu, Sohyune Sok
BMC Nursing.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Nursing Decision-Making Instrument Into European Portuguese
Ivo Cristiano Soares Paiva, Teresa Margarida Almeida Neves, Filipa Isabel Quaresma Santos Ventura, António Carlos Lopes Vilela, Isabel Maria Pinheiro Borges Moreira
SAGE Open Nursing.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Communication training program for nurses caring for patients with aphasia: a quasi-experimental study
Yujin Hur, Younhee Kang
BMC Nursing.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Work climate from the perspective of nurses: qualitative research
Justyna Kosydar-Bochenek, Sabina Krupa, Tomasz Semań, Wioletta Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska
Frontiers in Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
A Concept Analysis of Nurses’ Clinical Decision Making: Implications for Korea
Sunyoung Oh, Minkyung Gu, Sohyune Sok
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(6): 3596. CrossRef
Canonical correlations between individual self-efficacy/organizational bottom-up approach and perceived barriers to reporting medication errors: a multicenter study
Myoung Soo Kim, Chul-Hoon Kim
BMC Health Services Research.2019;[Epub] CrossRef

Cite

CITE

export

Copy Download

Format
XML Download

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
Citation and abstract for the content below

Validity of Korean Version of Clinical Decision Making Short Form Scale

Korean J Adult Nurs. 2014;26(4):403-412. Published online August 31, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.4.403

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
Citation and abstract for the content below

Validity of Korean Version of Clinical Decision Making Short Form Scale

Korean J Adult Nurs. 2014;26(4):403-412. Published online August 31, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.4.403

Validity of Korean Version of Clinical Decision Making Short Form Scale

Table 1.

General Characteristics of the Participants (N=247)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%)
Gender	Male	6 (2.4)
Gender	Female	241 (97.6)
Age (year)	21~25	89 (36.0)
	26~30	84 (34.0)
	31~35	58 (23.5)
	36~40	16 (6.5)
	≥41	16 (6.5)
Marital status	Married	71 (28.7)
Marital status	Single	176 (71.3)
Educational level	Diploma	96 (38.9)
	BSN	140 (56.7)
	Master and doctoral	11 (4.4)
	degree
Work unit	Medical & surgical	170 (68.8)
	nursing unit
	Intensive care unit	29 (11.7)
	Emergency room	21 (8.5)
	Others^†	27 (11.0)
Length of work as a nurse (year)	≤3	88 (35.6)
	4~5	55 (22.3)
	6~10	48 (19.4)
	11~20	44 (17.8)
	≥21	12 (4.9)
Position	Head nurse	10 (4.0)
	Charge nurse	19 (7.7)
	Staff nurse	218 (88.3)

^†Psychiatric (6), Pediatrics (5), Rehabilitation (5), Outpatient (3), Anesthesia (2), Dentistry (2), Gynecology and Obstetrics (2), Artificial kidney room (1), Hospice care (1).

Table 2.

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 24 item Nursing Decision Making Instrument

No. of item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
22	.690
23	.677
21	.620
20	.606
24	.506
19	.511
11		.622
18		.620
17		.564
16		.468
13		.445
9		.419
15		.415
14		.414
7			.700
5			.655
8			.622
3			.569
4			.529
1			.400
2			.322
12				.733
10				.723
6				.610
Eigen value	3.17	3.09	2.82	2.58
Variance	13.21	11.86	11.73	10.73
Cumulative variance	13.21	26.07	37.81	48.54

Table 3.

Each Factor's Name and Reliability

Factor	Name	Number of items	Cronbach's ⍺ coefficient
Factor 1	Implementation of plan, monitoring, and evaluation	6	.78
Factor 2	Plan for action	8	.81
Factor 3	Data collection	7	.71
Factor 4	Data processing and identification	3	.64
Total		24	.89

Table 1. General Characteristics of the Participants (N=247)

†

Psychiatric (6), Pediatrics (5), Rehabilitation (5), Outpatient (3), Anesthesia (2), Dentistry (2), Gynecology and Obstetrics (2), Artificial kidney room (1), Hospice care (1).

Table 2. Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 24 item Nursing Decision Making Instrument

Table 3. Each Factor's Name and Reliability

Articles

Page Path

Validity of Korean Version of Clinical Decision Making Short Form Scale

Full Article

Abstract

REFERENCES

Figure & Data

References

Citations

CITE

Download Citation

Format:

Include:

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

ABOUT

BROWSE ARTICLES

EDITORIAL POLICY

FOR CONTRIBUTORS