Using factor analysis to evaluate checklist items.

Danette W McKinley; John R Boulet

doi:10.1097/00001888-200510001-00027

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16199446

Using factor analysis to evaluate checklist items.

Danette W McKinley·John R Boulet

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Relatively little research has been published examining the use of factor analytic techniques to improve the psychometric qualities of performance assessments. The purpose of the current investigation is to illustrate the potential use of structural equation modeling (SEM) with scores from a standardized patient examination. METHOD: Checklist items for a single case were examined to compare two models within a SEM framework: a single, underlying "data gathering" construct and a two-factor model consisting of medical history interviewing and physical examination maneuvers. RESULTS: The chi2 statistics obtained were statistically significant for both the single factor (chi2=1645.8, p<.001) and the two-factor model, (chi2=1373.1; p<.001), indicating marginal model-data fit. A difference statistic was calculated (chi2=320.9; p<.001), suggesting that the two-factor model has better fit. CONCLUSIONS: The parameters estimated by each model could be used to evaluate checklist item performance. The results of this investigation illustrate the utility of this method in the analysis of checklist item data.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Competence Educational Measurement Factor Analysis, Statistical Humans Medical History Taking Physical Examination Psychometrics Surveys and Questionnaires United States Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Danette W McKinley, John R Boulet. 2005. Using factor analysis to evaluate checklist items.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200510001-00027

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A survey of the education of nurses working in mental health settings in 12 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Recent European policies emphasise that the training and education of health professionals are a major means of improving mental health services. Little comparative research has been undertaken to ascertain the degree of homogeneity in the training of nurses working in mental health settings across Europe. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the training of nurses working in mental health settings in a range of European countries. Specifically, information regarding criteria for entry into training, type of qualification awarded and further training opportunities was to be explored. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: A specially designed questionnaire was designed to gather data from senior mental health nurses working in the mental health field in a sample of 12 countries from across Europe. RESULTS: Findings disclosed considerable disparity between countries in respect to nurse training, with few countries requiring a specialist nursing qualification to practice in the mental health field. There appears to be little homogeneity in terms of educational provision pre and post-qualification. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed into how European states deliver nurse training and education, how students are prepared for various practice settings and the effect on outcomes for service users of different models of training.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2006

The challenge of locum working arrangements in New South Wales public hospitals.

Use of locum medical officers is increasing in the NSW hospital system. Locums are expensive, and have highly variable expertise and experience. Locum employment arrangements are ambiguous. Locum work may divert junior doctors from participation in specialist training. Attempts to regulate the locum workforce must be accompanied by measures that increase the appeal of public hospital work and vocational training positions.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2006

Clinical paradigms revisited.

Despite astounding advances in scientific knowledge and technological capabilities, modern medicine is not free of significant problems. A persistent high rate of diagnostic errors, the prevalence of medical (iatrogenic) harm and the growing demand for complementary and alternative medicine indicate an urgent need for improvement. An important step is a return to three quintessential clinical paradigms that have become neglected with the advent of high-technology medicine: the need to emphasise prevention and early, presymptomatic diagnosis; the crucial role in decision making of skillful history taking and examination, backed by evidence; and enhanced attention to patient autonomy and emotional factors. Possible reasons for the current neglect of these Altneuparadigms ("old-new" paradigms) are considered, and techniques for restoring their primacy in medicine are discussed.

Clinical Competence↗