↓ Skip to main content

Factor Structure, Reliability and Measurement Invariance of the Alberta Context Tool and the Conceptual Research Utilization Scale, for German Residential Long Term Care

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factor Structure, Reliability and Measurement Invariance of the Alberta Context Tool and the Conceptual Research Utilization Scale, for German Residential Long Term Care
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01339
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Hoben, Carole A. Estabrooks, Janet E. Squires, Johann Behrens

Abstract

We translated the Canadian residential long term care versions of the Alberta Context Tool (ACT) and the Conceptual Research Utilization (CRU) Scale into German, to study the association between organizational context factors and research utilization in German nursing homes. The rigorous translation process was based on best practice guidelines for tool translation, and we previously published methods and results of this process in two papers. Both instruments are self-report questionnaires used with care providers working in nursing homes. The aim of this study was to assess the factor structure, reliability, and measurement invariance (MI) between care provider groups responding to these instruments. In a stratified random sample of 38 nursing homes in one German region (Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar), we collected questionnaires from 273 care aides, 196 regulated nurses, 152 allied health providers, 6 quality improvement specialists, 129 clinical leaders, and 65 nursing students. The factor structure was assessed using confirmatory factor models. The first model included all 10 ACT concepts. We also decided a priori to run two separate models for the scale-based and the count-based ACT concepts as suggested by the instrument developers. The fourth model included the five CRU Scale items. Reliability scores were calculated based on the parameters of the best-fitting factor models. Multiple-group confirmatory factor models were used to assess MI between provider groups. Rather than the hypothesized ten-factor structure of the ACT, confirmatory factor models suggested 13 factors. The one-factor solution of the CRU Scale was confirmed. The reliability was acceptable (>0.7 in the entire sample and in all provider groups) for 10 of 13 ACT concepts, and high (0.90-0.96) for the CRU Scale. We could demonstrate partial strong MI for both ACT models and partial strict MI for the CRU Scale. Our results suggest that the scores of the German ACT and the CRU Scale for nursing homes are acceptably reliable and valid. However, as the ACT lacked strict MI, observed variables (or scale scores based on them) cannot be compared between provider groups. Rather, group comparisons should be based on latent variable models, which consider the different residual variances of each group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 20%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,814,957
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,586
of 29,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,002
of 334,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#316
of 404 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 404 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.