Back to all available

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Nighttime Collaboration Difficulties between Nurses and Physicians for Nurses (NCDNP-N) scale

global-health
nursing
psychiatry-and-psychology
healthcare-services

Abstract

Background: The cooperation between nurses and physicians at night is a vital influencing factor of patient treatment and patient safety. Effective communication and collaboration can respond effectively to changes in the patient’s condition at night. There is currently a lack of scale to assess the difficulties in collaboration between nurses and physicians during the night shift. While the scale of Nighttime Collaboration Difficulties between Nurses and Physicians for Nurses (NCDNP-N) has been developed in Japan. However, currently, China still lacks a scale for assessing the degree of difficulty in collaboration.

Objective: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the NCDNP-N scale among nurses in the context of Chinese clinical nursing.

Method: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among 483 clinical nurses in China. The translated scale's reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α coefficient, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were employed to assess structural validity. The data was analyzed using SPSS 22.0 and Amos 24.0.

Result: The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the Chinese version of the NCDNP-N scale was 0.922, the Cronbach's α coefficients of the three dimensions were 0.899, 0.960, and 0.954, respectively. The split-half reliability was 0.87, and the test-retest reliability was .886. The cumulative variance contribution rate of the three common factors extracted by exploratory factor analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1 is 8 6 284 %. The results of the CFA show ed that the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) was 1.484 the incremental fit index (IFI) was 0.993 the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.993 and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was 0.963 supporting the efficacy of the s c ale in assessing the difficult ies of cooperation between nurses and physicians of nighttime.

Conclusion : The Chinese version of the NCDNP-N scale demonstrated favourable reliability and validity among nurses, making it a suitable tool for measuring the level of nighttime collaboration difficulties between nurses and physicians for nurses.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].