Validating the Measure of Processes of Care for Service Providers (MPOC-SP(A)) tool in adult intensive care units
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. The Measures of Process of Care for Service Providers (MPOC-SP(A)) tool, developed by the CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research in Canada, assesses service providers’ perceptions of family-centred care (FCC) in adult rehabilitation. It consists of 27 items categorised into four domains: ‘showing interpersonal sensitivity’, ‘providing general information’, ‘communicating specific information’, and ‘treating people respectfully’. Each domain encompasses a distinct aspect of family-centred care applicable in the intensive care unit (ICU). An earlier version of the tool was previously validated for use in neonatal ICUs. However, this tool has not been validated for use in adult ICUs.
Objective. To validate the content validity index of the MPOC-SP(A) tool for healthcare professionals working in adult ICUs in South Africa.
Method. Following approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee, a multidisciplinary group of experienced ICU healthcare professionals was invited to review the MPOC-SP(A) tool, rating each item’s relevance on a four-point scale to avoid neutrality. The content validity index (CVI) was calculated for each item (I-CVI) and domain (S-CVI/Ave) using Microsoft Excel. An I-CVI of 0.83 and S-CVI/Ave of 0.9 were deemed acceptable. Items with a CVI below 0.83 were discarded.
Results. The scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave) for every domain was 0.9 and above, which is acceptable. Two items in domain A and one item in domain B were deleted owing to low I-CVI values. Two items were revised to improve the item’s clarity. Thus, a 24-item MPOC-SP(A) tool applicable to adult ICUs was generated following the content validity analysis.
Conclusion. The content experts’ assessment of the instrument’s items is essential to ensure its validity. This study has finalised the content validation process of the MPOC-SP(A) tool for use in the adult ICU. The refined tool is now ready for the next phase of validation focusing on construct and internal consistency.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJCC is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
1. What is PFCC? https://ipfcc.org/about/pfcc.html (accessed 22 June 2023).
2. Arslan FT, Geckil E, Aldem M, Celen R. The Family-Centered Care Assessment Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation in a Turkish sample. J Pediatric Nurs 2019;48:e35-e41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.06.001
3. King GA, Rosenbaum PL, King SM. Evaluating family-centred service using a measure of parents’ perceptions. Child Care Health and Development 1997;23(1):47-62. https://doi.org/10.1046/ j.1365-2214.1997.840840.x
4. King S, King G, Rosenbaum P. Evaluating health service delivery to children with chronic conditions and their families: Development of a refined Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC-20). Child Health Care 2004;33(1):35-57. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326888chc3301_3
5. Woodside JM, Rosenbaum PL, King SM, King GA. Family-centered service: Developing and validating a self-assessment tool for pediatric service providers. Children’s Health Care 2001;30(3):237-252. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326888CHC3003_5
6. Himuro N, Miyagishima S, Kozuka N, Tsutsumi H, Mori M. Measurement of family-centered care in the neonatal intensive care unit and professional background. J Perinatol 2015;35(4):284-289. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.204
7. Bamm EL, Rosenbaum P, Wilkins S, Stratford P. Performance of the measures of processes of care for adults and service providers in rehabilitation settings. Patient Related Outcome Measures 2015;6:157-165. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S81361
8. Aithal A, Aithal PS. Development and validation of survey questionnaire & experimental data – A systematical review-based statistical approach. Int J Management Technol Social Sciences 2020;5(2), 233-251. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4179499
9. Terwee CB, Prinsen C, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2018;27(5):1159- 1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
10. Prinsen C, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient- reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018;27(5):1147-1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11136-018-1798-3
11. Yusoff MSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Educ Med J 2019;11:49-54. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
12. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nurs Res 1992;5(4):194-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
13. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007;30(4):459-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
14. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006;29(5):489-497. https://doi.org/10.1002/ nur.20147
15. Siebes RC, Ketelaar M, Wijnroks L, et al. Family-centred services in The Netherlands: Validating a self-report measure for paediatric service providers. Clin Rehabil 2006;20(6):502-512. https:// doi.org/10.1191/0269215506cr979oa
16. Siebes RC, Nijhuis BJG, Boonstra AM, et al. A family-specific use of the Measure of Processes of Care for Service Providers (MPOC-SP). Clin Rehabil 2008;22(3):242-251. https://doi. org/10.1177/0269215507081568
17. Saloojee GM, Rosenbaum PR, Westaway MS, Stewart AV. Development of a measure of family- centred care for resource-poor South African settings: The experience of using a modified version of the MPOC-20. Child: Care, Health and Dev 2009;35(1):23-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2214.2008.00914.x
18. McConachie H, Logan S. Validation of the measure of processes of care for use when there is no child development centre. Child: Care, Health and Dev 2003;29(1):35-45. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2003.00314.x
19. Groleger Sršen K, Vidmar G, Zupan A. Validity, internal consistency reliability and one-year stability of the Slovene translation of the Measure of Processes of Care (20-item version). Child: Care, Health and Dev 2015;41(4):569-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12198
20. Saleh M, Almasri NA. Use of the Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC-20) to evaluate health service delivery for children with cerebral palsy and their families in Jordan: Validation of Arabic- translated version (AR-MPOC-20). Child: Care, Health and Dev 2014;40(5):680-688. https://doi. org/10.1111/cch.12116
21. Tang HN, Chong WH, Goh W, Chan WP, Choo S. Evaluation of family-centred practices in the early intervention programmes for infants and young children in Singapore with Measure of Processes of Care for Service Providers and Measure of Beliefs about Participation in Family- Centred Service. Child: Care, Health and Dev 2012;38(1):54-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2214.2011.01259.x
22. Bamm EL, Rosenbaum P, Stratford P. Validation of the measure of processes of care for adults: A measure of client-centred care. Int J Qual Health Care 2010;22(4):302-309. https://doi. org/10.1093/intqhc/mzq031
23. Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Res 2003;27(2):94-104. https://doi. org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94