Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:36:32.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of Disaster Preparedness Tools in Nurses: A Systematic Literature Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

Bilge Kalanlar Open the ORCID record for Bilge Kalanlar [Opens in a new window]
Bilge Kalanlar*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health Nursing, Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing Ankara, Turkey
*
Correspondence: Bilge Kalanlar, PhD, RN Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing, 06100 - Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

There is no widely-recommended standardized and valid measurement tool for evaluating the disaster preparedness of nurses. This study aims to assess the psychometric properties of scales developed or adapted to evaluate the sudden-impact natural disaster preparedness of nurses.

Methods:

This study is a systematic literature review for the psychometric properties of disaster preparedness tools. Studies published from 2010 through June 2021 were identified from a systematic search of five databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest. The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used for the systematic review and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for reporting. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) report on the Development of a Disaster Preparedness Tool Kit for Nursing and Midwifery was used to evaluate scale contents.

Results:

Six articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The scales generally had a multi-dimensional structure and used Likert scoring with internal consistency coefficients ranging from 0.785 to 0.97. All scales were rated sufficient in content validity, structural validity, and cross-cultural validity. One scale was rated sufficient in criterion validity while the others were rated indeterminate. One scale was rated insufficient in reliability and internal consistency while the others were rated sufficient.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest improving the psychometric properties of scales of nurses’ disaster preparedness according to COSMIN, expanding their content scope, and developing new scales. The study will provide beneficial data to users and researchers regarding the need for a comprehensive assessment tool in determining the disaster preparedness of nurses.

Keywords

assessmentdisaster preparednessnursepsychometric propertiestools
Type
Systematic Review
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 509 - 514
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). World Disaster Report 2020. https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/world-disaster-report-2020. Geneva, Switzerland: IFRC; 2020.Google Scholar
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The International Disasters Database (EM-DAT). https://www.emdat.be/. Accessed December 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Natural disasters - statistics & facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/2155/natural-disasters/2021. Accessed December 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Veenema, TG. Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Terrorism and Other Hazards. Fourth edition. New York USA: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
Baker Ghazi, O. Preparedness assessment for managing disasters among nurses in an international setting: implications for nurses. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021;56:100993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betka, AA, Bergren, MD, Rowen, JL. Improving rural disaster response preparedness. Public Health Nurs. 2021;38(5):856–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khilji, FR, Raziq, A, Shoaib, M, et al. “Expecting the Unexpected:” nurses’ response and preparedness of terrorism-related disaster events in Quetta City, Pakistan. Front Public Health. 2021;9:695143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2020 The non-COVID year in disasters: global trends and perspectives. http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/245181. Accessed December 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Tilahun, L, Desu, B, Zeleke, M, Dagnaw, K, Andualem, A. Emergency and disaster handling preparedness among front line health service providing nurses and associated factors at emergency department, at Amhara Regional State Referral Hospitals, Ethiopia. Open Access Emerg Med. 2021;13:221–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Younos, TB, Hasan, MK, Nasreen, M. Are nurses ready? Bangladeshi nurses’ perceived preparedness for disasters: a mixed-methods approach. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021;58:102195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songwathana, P, Timalsina, R. Disaster preparedness among nurses of developing countries: an integrative review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021;55:100955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molassiotis, A, Guo, C, Abu-Odah, H, West, C, Yuen Loke, A. Evolution of disaster nursing research in the past 30 years (1990–2019): a bibliometric and mapping analysis. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021;58:102230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loke Yuen, A, Guo, C, Molassiotis, A. Development of disaster nursing education and training programs in the past 20 years (2000–2019): a systematic review. Nurse Education Today. 2021;99:104809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokkink, LB, de Vet, HCW, Prinsen, CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. Development of a Disaster Preparedness Tool Kit for Nursing and Midwifery: Report on a WHO Meeting. Coleraine, United Kingdom; 20-21 August 1999. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/108243. Accessed December 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, TF, Chou, KR, Liao, YM, Ho, CH, Chung, MH. Construct validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool in Taiwan. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(7-8):1132–1143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, J, Lu, S, Sun, X, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool (DPET) on emergency nurses in Mainland China: two cross-sectional studies. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021. Epub ahead of print.Google ScholarPubMed
Han, SJ, Chun, J. Validation of the Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool for Nurses-the Korean Version. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2021;18(3):1348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al Khalaileh, MAA, Bond, AE, Beckstrand, RL, Al-Talafha, A. The Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool: psychometric testing of the Classical Arabic version. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(3):664–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, L, Li, M, Xu, X, Wang, Z, Li, S, Feng, X. Adaptation and evaluation of the Chinese hospital nursing department disaster preparedness scale: a cross-sectional scale development study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e043636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavan, H, Menati, W, Azadi, A, Sayehmiri, K, Sahebi, A. Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure Iranian nurses’ knowledge, attitude and practice regarding disaster preparedness. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(8):IC06–IC09).Google ScholarPubMed
Beaton, DE, Bombardier, C, Guillemin, F, Ferraz, MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–3191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVellis, RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles, California USA: Sage Publishing; 2017: 1–246.Google Scholar
Jones, PS, Lee, JW, Phillips, LR, Zhang, XE, Jaceldo, KB. An adaptation of Brislin’s translation model for cross-cultural research. Nurs Res. 2001;50(5):300–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terwee, CB, Prinsen, CA, de Vet, HCW, et al. COSMIN Methodology for Assessing the Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). User Manual. 2017.Google Scholar
Prinsen, CA, Vohra, S, Rose, MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Council of Nurses. “Core Competencies in Disaster Nursing.” Version 2.0. 2019. https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/ICN_Disaster-Comp-Report_WEB.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Carmines, EG, Zeller, RA. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, California USA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1982.Google Scholar
Terwee, CB. Protocol for systematic reviews of measurement properties. https://www.cosmin.nl/images/upload/files/Protocol%20klinimetrische%20review%20version%20nov%202011.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Özdamar, K. Ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. 2. Baskı. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi. 2017.Google Scholar
Hoben, M, Mahler, C, Bar, M, et al. German translation of the Alberta context tool and two measures of research use: methods, challenges and lessons learned. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Squires, A, Aiken, LH, van den Heede, K, et al. A systematic survey instrument translation process for multi-country, comparative health workforce studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(2):264–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capık, C, Gözüm, S, ve Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uyarlaması: güncellenmiş rehber [Intercultural scale adaptation stages, language, and culture adaptation: updated guideline]. FNJN Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing. 2018;26(3):199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar