|
Affiliation
|
Department of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University, PO Box 527, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia. |
|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: The need for increased education on intimate partner violence (IPV) for healthcare practitioners has been well established. Most Australian healthcare practitioners are educated at university, where educational interventions could be delivered to students. Specific IPV outcome measurement instruments demonstrating sound psychometric properties would enable accurate evaluation of educational interventions to ensure effectiveness.
METHODS: The psychometric properties of the Modified Physician REadiness to Manage Intimate partner violence Scale (Modified PREMIS) were measured when delivered to a cohort of Australian paramedic and nursing students, performing principal component analysis, and evaluating dimensionality, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: In total, 260 responses were received, participants were primarily paramedicine students (85.0%) with the remainder double degree nursing and paramedicine students (15.0%). Actual and Perceived Knowledge and Perceived Preparation subscales demonstrated variable validity and reliability. Principal component analysis of opinion items revealed a 5-factor solution, with identified subscales demonstrating mostly low internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha between 0.47 and 0.80). Correlations between subscales demonstrated few significant correlations above r = 0.3 which may indicate problems with construct validity. Medium to high test-retest reliability was found for subscales with spearman's rho values between 0.63 and 0.88.
CONCLUSIONS: The scale did not demonstrate robust psychometric properties and some items may not be appropriate for use with Australian healthcare student cohorts. Pending revisions and subsequent psychometric appraisal the instrument should be used with caution; however an updated instrument may contribute as a valuable tool for IPV educational research and this paper provides several findings which may be of use when revising the scale.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Language: en |