Next Article in Journal
A Cross-Sectional Study: What Contributes to Nursing Students’ Clinical Reasoning Competence?
Previous Article in Journal
Knowledge and Associated Factors about Rare Diseases among Dentists in Israel: A Cross Sectional Survey
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 13
10.3390/ijerph18136834
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Chinese Version of the Caring Dimensions Inventory: Reliability and Validity Assessment

by
Lai-Kun Tong
1,
Ming-Xia Zhu
2,
Si-Chen Wang
2,
Pak-Leng Cheong
2 and
Iat-Kio Van
2,*
1
Research Management and Development Department, Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau, Macau 999078, China
2
Education Department, Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau, Macau 999078, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(13), 6834; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136834
Submission received: 8 June 2021 / Revised: 21 June 2021 / Accepted: 23 June 2021 / Published: 25 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Nursing)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Caring is central to nursing practice. Chinese nurses take care for the health of about 20% of the world’s population and their perception of caring is critical. However, until recently, instrument specifically designed to measure the caring of nurses in China was not found. Caring dimensions inventory (CDI) is one of the most frequently used instrument when measuring caring and is applicable to nurses from different cultures. The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the 25-item CDI. The English version of CDI was translated into Chinese according to the guidelines of the World Health Organization. Content validity was conducted among seven senior nurses from different institutions in different cities in China. A convenience sample of nurses from 11 cities in China was employed. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis of the CDI was carried out using a sample of 880 nurses. The overall content validity index was 0.98. Three factors (Nurturance, Collaboration, Skill) were identified in exploratory factor analysis and were confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. The three-factor solution explains 70.15% of the total variance. The Cronbach alpha for overall the CDI was 0.97. This study demonstrated that the Chinese version of the CDI showed satisfactory reliability and validity, indicating that it could be a useful measurement to assess nurses’ perception of caring in China.

1. Introduction

International nursing scholars have asserted that caring is the essence of nursing [1,2,3,4]. Scholars in different historical periods and cultural backgrounds have different understandings of the concept of caring in nursing [5]. Watson emphasized that caring is a kind of spiritual experience of interpersonal interaction in a specific time and situation, and the establishment of a good nurse–patient interaction can promote the patient’s physical recovery [2]. Leininger defined caring as a nurse who provides assistance, support, and facility to the needs of patients and their families based on their unique cultural backgrounds [3]. Nurses can make use of different theoretical models to carry out caring according to different cultures and situations. The most commonly used theoretical models are Watson’s Caring Model and Roach’s 5C’s of Caring Theory. Watson’s 10 carative factors are referred to as the interventions of the model [2]. Roger proposed that nurses need to have compassion, confidence, competence, commitment, and conscience to perform caring [6].
Caring is central to nursing practice. An umbrella review shows that both nurses and patients have expectations about caring relationships [7]. Caring not only improve patients satisfaction [8], but also mental well-being of patients and nurses [9], as well as physical well-being of patients [10]. The understanding of caring will essentially influence the way nurses provide care, and the quality of care delivered; more importantly, how nurses perceive care affects how they understand the concept of nursing [11]. Caring is an important concept in nursing, however, it is an elusive concept and difficult to assess [12]. Even though any measurement of caring is only “an indicator of something deeper”, it may allow researchers to be more explicit [13].
Academic researchers have developed a number of tools for measuring caring [14,15]. Most of these instruments are designed based on sound theoretical frameworks such as Mayeroff’s eight caring ingredients (e.g., the Caring Ability Inventory [CAI] [16]), Watson’s theory of human caring (e.g., Caring Behavior Inventory [CBI] [17]), or a combination of different theories (e.g., Caring Attributes, Professional Self, and Technological Influence Instrument [18], the Caring Dimension Inventory [CDI] [19]).
Chinese nurses take care for the health of about 20% of the world’s population [20], and their perception of caring is critical. Therefore, Chinese nurses’ perception of caring needs to be assessed by an appropriate Chinese language tool. However, until recently, we have not found any instrument specifically designed to measure the caring of nurses in China. To fill the gap, we decided to translate and modify existing instruments.
CAI can be applied to anyone, so it does not well reflect a nurse’s caring for patient in clinical practice. CBI is a self and observer rating scale to measure caring behavior, so it is mostly overt behavior and attitude, covert behavior and attitude are not included. CDI is one of the most frequently used instrument when measuring caring [14,15], it has a small number of items [14] and is applicable to nurses from different cultures [21,22,23]. CDI would appear to be an appropriate caring inventory to use within the Chinese context. Therefore, we choose as a potential tool to measure Chinese nurses’ perception of caring.
CDI is a 25-item, 5-point Likert scale designed to measure nurses’ perception of caring [19]. Items on the scale are rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scoring is accomplished by summing scores for items. The total score ranges from 25–125. For the English version, the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91 for the total scale [19].The purpose of the study was to test the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of CDI.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethic

The Research Management and Development Department of Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau provided ethical approval (reference no: 2019APR01). The inventory had no copyright and the developers of the instrument provided their authorization to use it.

2.2. Participants

A convenience sample of nurses from 11 cities in China, including Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Foshan, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Jiangmen, Huizhou, Zhaoqing, Hong Kong, and Macau was surveyed. The nurses recruited for this study were as follows: who were working in hospitals, clinics, schools, elderly service institutions or nursing homes in the above 11 cities, who had passed the probationary period, who were able to read and write Chinese, and who were willing to participate in the study.

2.3. Procedures

We translated the CDI into Chinese according to the guidelines of the World Health Organization [24]. We followed a standard procedure in five stages: (1) Forward translation: translation was performed by a native Chinese speaker who has studied and lived in the UK for many years. (2) Expert panel: The draft Chinese translation of the CDI was reviewed by an expert committee comprised of the expert in caring, the experts in nurse, the expert in public health, the expert in translation, and the translator. Experts’ opinions were collected via email and then discussed face to face. The research team put together all the suggestions and revised the draft. A complete translated version of the scale was formed after repeated consultation with experts. (3) Back-translation: A postdoctoral fellow from the UK, who had no knowledge of the scale, carried out a back-translation of the Chinese version into English. The above expert panel steps were carried out for the back-translation version of the scale until a satisfactory version was completed. (4) Pre-testing and cognitive interviewing: Content validity was conducted among seven senior nurses from different institutions in different cities. The content validity index (CVI) range of each item in the scale is 0.86–1.00. The average scale CVI was 0.98, which is above the acceptable value. The expression of some items was improved in the scale according to expert advice. The pre-final version was distributed online to one nurse in each of the 11 cities. The research team interviewed each nurse via social software (WeChat) to collect feedback on the intelligibility, usability, applicability, and completeness of the scale. According to the data and feedback, the scale was revised into the final version. (5) Test of the final version: Further testing of the adapted version was conducted in 11 cities through an online questionnaire.

2.4. Data Collection

The research team contacted a questionnaire collector in each city, who was responsible for collecting the questionnaire in the city. The questionnaire collector works in a hospital, university or nursing professional group. The research team produced electronic poster for the study. The questionnaire collectors distributed poster to relevant institutions in their cities or social platforms commonly used by nurses. The poster contains a link to the online questionnaire and a QR code. The online questionnaire included a cover letter that addressed the purpose and importance of the study. After reading the instruction letter, the participants clicked the “Agree to participate” option before filling in the questionnaire. The data were mainly collected from 19 May to 7 August 2020.

2.5. Data Analysis

We planned to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the scale. CFA requires a minimum of 50 samples [25], preferably 800 [26]. We planned to collect 80 questionnaires in each city, but the number of questionnaires collected online is difficult to control, so after the data collection was completed, SPSS 26.0 was used to randomly select 80 samples for analysis in cities that had collected more than 80 samples.
The CVI was used to determine the content validity [27]. Items with a CVI of 0.80 or higher could be considered evidence of good content validity. SPSS 26.0 was used for internal consistency analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80 and above is good [28]. The mean and standard deviations of item were used to provide information about item difficulty for judgment and endorsement level [29]. Construct validity was assessed by EFA using principal components analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation. Prior to the test, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of spherical (BTS) were used to determine whether the sample data were suitable for EFA. KMO is greater than 0.6 and BTS must be significant at α < 0.05, indicating that the data were sufficient to proceed for EFA [28]. The number of factors to be extracted was guided by Kaiser’s criterion (Eigenvalue ≥ 1), the scree plot test (above the break), the number of items (>3) [30]. Items with factor loadings < 0.50 were deleted. If items with loadings were greater than 0.50 on more than one factor, the item was placed with the factor that it is most closely related to conceptually [31]. The Cronbach’s Alpha for each factor of 0.70 and above is good [32].
We then performed CFA with maximum likelihood factoring to confirm the exploratory model. Another group of samples were randomly selected for CFA analysis using the same method of EFA. CFA was performed using AMOS 22.0. The following goodness-of-fit indices were used to assess the model: Normed fit index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) [33]. Model fit is acceptable if NFI ≥ 0.90, IFI ≥ 0.90, TLI ≥ 0.90, CFI ≥ 0.90, and RMSEA ≤ 0.10 [34].

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Participants

Demographic data of nurses are shown in Table 1. Ninety-five percent of subjects were female and more than half (64.4%) were married. The mean age was 34.3 (S.D. = 9.7) with a range from 18 to 69 years old. About half of the subjects had more than 10 years of job experience (48.2%) and nearly three-fifths had a bachelor’s degree (59.5%). The sample mean score of CDI was 107.35 (S.D. = 14.79). As shown in Table 1, males had higher scores, above 40 years old rated higher than other age groups, married nurses scored higher than single nurses.

3.2. Validity

3.2.1. Content Validity

The CVI was used to determine the content validity. Table 2 presents the item CVI ranging from 0.86 to 1.00 and the total CVI was 0.98. Item 2, item 4, and item 16 had the lowest CVI of 0.86. For item 2, one expert believed that making a nursing record about a patient was not relevant to the practice of humanistic caring. For item 4, one expert believed that “as a person” could easily produce ambiguity in Chinese context. For item 16, one expert pointed out that sharing personal problems with a patient is not in line with Chinese culture. After discussion and consensus among panel members and researchers, item 2 and 16 were retained in the Chinese version, and item 4 was modified as recommended by the experts.

3.2.2. Construct Validity

The EFA was performed to test the factor structures of CDI. The KMO value was 0.97 and BTS significant with a p-value of <0.001, indicating that principal component analysis was appropriate. We performed the principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. A three-factor solution explaining 70.15% of the total variance was obtained, but item 5, 15, 21, and item 24 cross-loaded on two factors. placing the item 24 with the Factor 1, item 15 and item 21 with the Factor 2, item 5 with the Factor 3 that it is most closely related to conceptually. The percentages explained by each factor were 31.36% (Nurturance), 20.27% (Collaboration), and 18.52% (Skill) respectively. The item loadings are presented in Table 3.

3.2.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Estimation of model fit of CFA using 3-factor model was based on maximum likelihood method. The results of the CFA revealed good model fit of the CDI: NFI was 0.90, IFI was 0.91, TLI was 0.90, CFI was 0.91, and RMSEA was 0.09. Standardized factor loadings are displayed in Figure 1.

3.3. Reliability

The Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha for overall CDI was 0.97. All three factors on the CDI had a high rating for reliability (Table 4). The means and standard deviation of each item are presented in Table 2. Item 23 was well endorsed by the nurses in the study with mean score of 4.52, while item 2 was least endorsed with mean score of 3.83.

4. Discussion

CDI has proven to be a valid and reliable instrument for assessing nurses’ perception of caring [21,22,23]. But until now, the translation of the Chinese version has never been validated. The purpose of this study was to translate the CDI and test its psychometric properties (reliability and validity) in Chinese nurses. This study demonstrated that the Chinese version of the CDI showed satisfactory reliability and validity, indicating that it could be a useful measurement to assess nurses’ perception of caring in China.
The CVI for the Chinese version of the CDI was high, indicating good content validity. The rates agreed that all items were clear, applicable, and relevant to assess the perception of caring. Item 4 showed the lowest CVI. In English-speaking countries, “as a person” is a common and easily understood expression, but not in China. Experts believed that “as a person” could easily produce ambiguity in Chinese context, so they suggested that the patient should be regarded as a complete person, normal person, or an independent individual. Item 4 of the Chinese version was modified as recommended by the experts.
In this study, the Chinese version of CDI demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97), which is higher than the original English version (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91) [19] and the Persian version (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86) [22].
The aspect of nursing work in China which was considered to be most caring was item 23 (providing privacy for a patient), while in the UK and Spain it was item 13 (listening to a patient) [19,21]. This may be due to the fact that this study was conducted later than that of the UK and Spain, and the increasing emphasis on patient privacy [35]. Item 2 (making a nursing record about a patient) was considered the least caring aspect of nursing work in China, compared with item 16 (sharing your personal problems with a patient) in the UK [19] and item 1 (assisting a patient with an activity of living) in Jordan [36]. The difference in the ranking of the items indicates that nurses from different countries ascribe a different level of importance to caring. The reasons for the differences may be cultural, social value, and institutional differences between countries [37]. This is because nurses in China believe that caring is reflected in qualified professional knowledge, attitude, and skills, and provide support for patients [38], while writing medical records is just a daily job, which has nothing to do with caring. What is interesting is that item 16 was the least related dimension of caring in different countries, such as the UK, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia [19,37,39]. In fact, Chinese nurses scored relatively low on item 16, only 0.11 higher than item 2. Like nurses in other parts of Asia, Chinese nurses are less likely to express their feelings in public [40]. At first one expert concerned that item 16 might not be applicable to Chinese culture, but it was tested that it could be retained in the final version.
There are often differences in the factor structure of the scale when it is tested under different cultural backgrounds [41,42]. To better establish a factor solution for Chinese nurses, we proposed a modified factor structure according to the results of EFA. According to the results of EFA in this study, three factors were obtained, and labeled Nurturance, Collaboration, Skill. (1) Nurturance means that nurses care for patients in a manner that respects the uniqueness and value of each individual [43]. Caring is “the moral ideal of nursing whereby the end is protection, enhancement, and preservation of human dignity” [44]. Respectful interpersonal relationships are essential to preserving human dignity [45]. Nurses’ ability to offer patients unconditionally acceptance is an antecedent for Nurturance [43]. Ryan proposes that nurses should take care of patients “in their world, not mine” [46]. (2) Collaboration signifies the collaborative work of patients, nurses, and other multidisciplinary team members to promote high-quality patient outcomes [47]. Transpersonal caring is one of the three main elements of Watson’s theory [48]. The term transpersonal is defined as “an intersubjective human-to-human relationship” [48]. Watson pointed out that nurses need to provide patients with ”supportive, protective, and (or) physical, societal, and spiritual environment” [48]. This requires nurses to cooperate in performing caring. The participation of patients, family members, and health professionals in a cooperative and coordinated manner is the guarantee of high quality and safe health care [49]. Nurses are involved in collaborations ranging from assisting patients with activities of daily living to individual, group or family therapy [50]. (3) Skill indicates basic clinical nursing skills. Although technical knowledge and skills are not integral features of nursing, technical competence is an important aspect of nursing [23]. High quality nursing is a combination of technical competence and psychological care [51].
The number of factors in the Chinese version is different from that in the original English version [52]. The researches claimed that four factor model and five factor model were found to fit acceptably well in the original English version [52]. However, some factors with fewer than three items were extracted in the original English version [52], indicating that these factors are weak and unstable [53]. Although the English version did not mention the Cronbach’s alpha of these unstable factors, the analysis in the Persian version showed that two items were loaded on factor 5 with a relatively low Cronbach’s alpha of 0.31 [22]. The results of this study suggest that the three-factor model may be more appropriate. First, the results of the EFA show that there are no cross-loading above 0.5 and each factor has at least five variables with high loadings (>0.5). Second, the results of the CFA demonstrated satisfactory goodness-of-fit between the data and the factor structure with high item loadings. Third, all three factors on the CDI had a high rating for reliability.
The strength of this study is that it adopts a multistep translation method supported by existing evidence rather than a simple translation/back-translation process [24,54]. However, some limitations must be considered interpreting these findings. First, in this study, one translator was responsible for forward translation and back-translation, respectively. Although the research team organized an expert panel and a team of content validity experts to check the quality of scale translation, the translation scale might not reach the optimal quality. Second, the proportion of male nurses in our sample was less than 5%, so the results may not be generalized to male nurses. Future work should further validate the Chinese version of the CDI with a more representative and larger sample. Third, the stability and reliability of CDI over time cannot be determined without a test-retest reliability analysis. The test-retest reliability of the Chinese version of the CDI should be examined in the future. Forth, only factor analysis was used to test the CDI construct validity. Construct validity alone is not enough to determine the validity of the scale, further validity tests, such as criterion validity, are needed.

5. Conclusions

The CDI was successfully translated and culturally adapted into Chinese. The Chinese version of the CDI showed satisfactory reliability and validity among Chinese nurses. Results also reveal three factors underlying nurses’ perception of caring—Nurturance, Collaboration, Skill.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.-K.T. and I.-K.V.; methodology, L.-K.T. and M.-X.Z.; software, L.-K.T., S.-C.W. and P.-L.C.; validation, L.-K.T., I.-K.V. and M.-X.Z.; formal analysis, L.-K.T., S.-C.W. and P.-L.C.; investigation, L.-K.T., S.-C.W. and I.-K.V.; resources, M.-X.Z.; data curation, L.-K.T., S.-C.W. and P.-L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.-K.T. and I.-K.V.; writing—review and editing, M.-X.Z., S.-C.W. and P.-L.C.; visualization, M.-X.Z. and I.-K.V.; supervision, I.-K.V.; project administration, I.-K.V.; funding acquisition, I.-K.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Macao Foundation, grant number 2964/DS/2019.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study protocol was approved by the Research Management and Development Department of Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau (protocol code 2019APR01, dated April 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Funding from Macao Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Hong Mei Tao, Jing Hua Wang, Jun Lin, Leona Leung, Li Jing Hu, Li Zhang, Shu Ling Li for their contributions to confirm the content validity of the Chinese version of the CDI.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Smith, M.C. Caring and the Science of Unitary Human Beings. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 1999, 21, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Watson, J. Nursing: The philosophy and science of caring In Caring in Nursing Classics: An Essential Resource, Revised ed.; Smith, M.C., Turkel, M.C., Wolf, Z.R., Eds.; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 243–264. [Google Scholar]
  3. Leininger, M.M. Caring—An Essential Human Need: Proceedings of Three National Caring Conferences. In Caring in Nursing Classics: An Essential Resource; Smith, M.C., Turkel, M.C., Wolf, Z.R., Eds.; Springer Publishing Company, LCC: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 127–142. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nyberg, J. The element of caring in nursing administration. Nurs. Adm. Q. 1989, 13, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sargent, A. Reframing caring as discursive practice: A critical review of conceptual analyses of caring in nursing. Nurs. Inq. 2011, 19, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Roach, M.S. The Human Act of Caring: A Blueprint for the Health Professions, Revised ed.; Canadian Hospital Association Press: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wiechula, R.; Conroy, T.; Kitson, A.L.; Marshall, R.J.; Whitaker, N.; Rasmussen, P. Umbrella review of the evidence: What factors influence the caring relationship between a nurse and patient? J. Adv. Nurs. 2015, 72, 723–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Goh, M.L.; Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K. Hospitalised Patients’ Satisfaction with Their Nursing Care: An Integrative Review. Singap. Nurs. J. 2016, 43, 11–27. [Google Scholar]
  9. Werner, J.S.; Wendler, M.C.; McCormick, J.; Paulus-Smith, S.; Jackson, C.; Nie, J. Human Response Outcomes Influenced by Nurse Caring. Int. J. Hum. Caring 2002, 6, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Finfgeld-Connett, D. Meta-synthesis of caring in nursing. J. Clin. Nurs. 2007, 17, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Patistea, E. Nurses’ perceptions of caring as documented in theory and research. J. Clin. Nurs. 1999, 8, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Cook, L.B.; Peden, A. Finding a focus for nursing: The caring concept. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 2017, 40, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sitzman, K.; Watson, J. Assessing and Measuring Caring in Nursing and Health Sciences; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. Beck, C.T. Quantitative measurement of caring. J. Adv. Nurs. 1999, 30, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Papastavrou, E.; Efstathiou, G.; Charalambous, A. Nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of caring behaviours: Quantitative systematic review of comparative studies. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011, 67, 1191–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Nkongho, N. The caring ability inventory. In Measurement of Nursing Outcomes; Lea, S.O., Colleen, D., Eds.; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 2003; Volume 3, pp. 184–198. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wolf, Z.R.; Giardino, E.R.; Osborne, P.A.; Ambrose, M.S. Dimensions of Nurse Caring. Image: J. Nurs. Sch. 1994, 26, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arthur, D.; Pang, S.; Wong, T. The effect of technology on the caring attributes of an international sample of nurses. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2001, 38, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Watson, R.; Lea, A. The caring dimensions inventory (CDI): Content validity, reliability and scaling. J. Adv. Nurs. 1997, 25, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. UN-DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2021).
  21. Watson, R.; Hoogbruin, A.L.; Rumeu, C.; Beunza, M.; Barbarin, B.; Macdonald, J.; McCready, T. Differences and similarities in the perception of caring between Spanish and UK nurses. J. Clin. Nurs. 2003, 12, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Salimi, S.; Azimpour, A.; Mohammadzadeh, S.; Fesharaki, M. Psychometric properties of Persian version of the Caring Dimension Inventory (PCDI-25). Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2014, 19, 173–179. [Google Scholar]
  23. Akansel, N.; Watson, R.; Aydin, N.; Özdemir, A. Mokken scaling of the Caring Dimensions Inventory (CDI-25). J. Clin. Nurs. 2013, 22, 1818–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. World Health Organization. Process of Translation and Adaptation of Instruments. Available online: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/ (accessed on 11 January 2021).
  25. Iacobucci, D. Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jackson, D.L. Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates in Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Monte Carlo Investigation. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2001, 8, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Davis, L.L. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl. Nurs. Res. 1992, 5, 194–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. George, D.; Mallery, P. IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference; Routledge: Boston, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yong, A.G.; Pearce, S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2013, 9, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pett, M.A.; Lackey, N.R.; Sullivan, J.J. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  32. Terwee, C.B.; Bot, S.D.; de Boer, M.; van der Windt, D.A.; Knol, D.L.; Dekker, J.; Bouter, L.; de Vet, H.C. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007, 60, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Jackson, D.L.; Gillaspy, J.A., Jr.; Purc-Stephenson, R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2009, 14, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Weston, R.; Gore, P.A. A Brief Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 719–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Olsen, D.P.; Dixon, J.K.; Grey, M.; Deshefy-Longhi, T.; Demarest, J.C. Privacy concerns of patients and nurse practitioners in primary care—An APRNet study. J. Am. Acad. Nurse Pract. 2005, 17, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Alhadidi, M.M.; Abdalrahim, M.S.; Al-Hussami, M. Nurses’ caring and empathy in Jordanian psychiatric hospitals: A national survey. Int. J. Ment. Heal. Nurs. 2016, 25, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Akansel, N.; Watson, R.; Vatansever, N.; Özdemir, A. Nurses’ perceptions of caring activities in nursing. Nurs. Open 2021, 8, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Liu, J.-E.; Mok, E.; Wong, T. Caring in nursing: Investigating the meaning of caring from the perspective of cancer patients in Beijing, China. J. Clin. Nurs. 2006, 15, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Albougami, A.S. Perception of Caring among Nurses Working in a Tertiary Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Pak. J. Med Health Sci. 2020, 14, 937–941. [Google Scholar]
  40. Udomluck, S.; Tonmukayakul, O.; Tiansawad, S.; Srisuphan, W. Development of Thai nurses’ caring behavior scale. Pac. Rim Int. J. Nurs. Res. 2010, 14, 32–44. [Google Scholar]
  41. Beaton, D.E.; Bombardier, C.; Guillemin, F.; Ferraz, M.B. Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine 2000, 25, 3186–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Chang, Y.-C.; Yeh, M.-L. Translation and validation of the Nurses Self-Concept Instrument for college-level nursing students in Taiwan. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 36, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sappington, J.Y. Nurturance: The spirit of holistic nursing. J. Holist. Nurs. 2003, 21, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Watson, J. Nursing: Human Science and Human Care. A Theory of Nursing; NLN Publications: Boston, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pajnkihar, M. Theory Development for Nursing in Slovenia. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ryan, M.; Twibell, R.; Brigham, C.; Bennett, P. Learning to Care for Clients in Their World, Not Mine. J. Nurs. Educ. 2000, 39, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Duffy, J.R.; Hoskins, L.M. The Quality-Caring Model©: Blending Dual Paradigms. Caring Nurs. Class. 2012, 26, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Watson, J.; Woodward, T. Jean Watson’s Theory of Human Caring; F. A. Davis Company: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  49. Morley, L.; Cashell, A. Collaboration in Health Care. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 2017, 48, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Gámez, G.G. The Nurse-Patient Relationship as a Caring Relationship. Nurs. Sci. Q. 2009, 22, 126–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pajnkihar, M.; Vrbnjak, D.; Kasimovskaya, N.; Watson, R.; Stiglic, G. Perceptions of Caring Between Slovene and Russian Members of Nursing Teams. J. Transcult. Nurs. 2018, 30, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lea, A.; Watson, R.; Deary, I.J. Caring in nursing: A multivariate analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 1998, 28, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
  54. Acquadro, C.; Conway, K.; Hareendran, A.; Aaronson, N. Literature Review of Methods to Translate Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires for Use in Multinational Clinical Trials. Value Health 2008, 11, 509–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ijerph 18 06834 g001 550
Figure 1. CFA for the CDI with standardized loadings.
Figure 1. CFA for the CDI with standardized loadings.
Ijerph 18 06834 g001
Table
Table 1. Summary of demographic data, and CDI mean score (N = 880).
Table 1. Summary of demographic data, and CDI mean score (N = 880).
VariableN (%)CDI Score
MeanS.D.
Overall880 (100)107.3514.79
Gender
Female837 (95.1)107.6114.64
Male43 (4.9)102.2116.89
Age (years) Range: 18–69, Mean = 34.3 (S.D. = 9.7)
≤25164 (18.6)108.1012.64
26–30230 (26.1)106.6316.03
31–40276 (31.4)106.6117.05
≥41210 (23.9)108.5111.33
Education
College degree or bellow295 (33.5)107.4013.92
Bachelor 524 (59.5)107.2615.35
Master or above61 (6.9)107.8914.23
Marital status
single291 (33.1)107.3313.01
married565 (64.2)107.4015.35
other24 (2.7)106.2921.15
Job experience (years) Range: 0–44, Mean = 12.8 (S.D. = 9.6)
<16 (0.7)104.5016.33
1–3 years129(14.7)107.1312.66
3.1–6 years155 (17.6)107.6015.67
6.1–10 years166 (18.9)106.8515.66
>10424 (48.2)107.5614.75
Table
Table 2. The content, content validity index (CVI), means, standard deviations for CDI items (N = 880).
Table 2. The content, content validity index (CVI), means, standard deviations for CDI items (N = 880).
ItemItem ContentCVIMeanS.D.
English VersionFinal Chinese Version
Q1Assisting a patient with an activity of living協助病人進行日常活動1.004.310.76
Q2Making a nursing record about a patient書寫病人的護理記錄0.863.831.06
Q3Feeling sorry for a patient對病人的痛苦感同身受1.004.320.79
Q4Getting to know the patient as a person視病人為一個完整的人0.864.450.74
Q5Explaining a clinical procedure解釋臨床程序1.004.260.79
Q6Being neatly dressed when working with a patient接觸病人時保持衣著整齊1.004.370.72
Q7Sitting with a patient與病人同坐(平等相處)1.004.320.76
Q8Exploring a patient’s lifestyle深入瞭解病人的生活方式1.004.300.76
Q9Reporting a patient’s condition to a senior nurse向資深護士報告病人的情况1.004.170.81
Q10Being with a patient during a clinical procedure進行臨床程序期間陪伴病人1.004.300.71
Q11Being honest with a patient真誠對待病人1.004.510.64
Q12Organizing the work of others for a patient組織其他人員(所有人)為病人服務1.004.260.76
Q13Listening to a patient聆聽病人1.004.510.64
Q14Consulting with the doctor about a patient向醫生諮詢有關病人的情况1.004.290.75
Q15Instructing a patient about an aspect of self-care指導病人自我照顧1.004.400.67
Q16Sharing your personal problems with a patient與病人分享個人困擾0.863.941.12
Q17Keeping relatives informed about a patient讓病人家屬持續瞭解病情1.004.310.71
Q18Measuring the vital signs of a patient測量病人的生命體徵1.004.270.80
Q19Putting the needs of a patient before your own病人需要先於自己1.004.080.90
Q20Being technically competent with a clinical procedure勝任臨床程序的技術要求1.004.290.76
Q21Involving a patient in his or her care讓病人參與到自己的健康照顧當中1.004.360.71
Q22Giving reassurance about a clinical procedure給予病人臨床程序的保證1.004.180.85
Q23Providing privacy to a patient確保病人的私隱1.004.520.65
Q24Being cheerful with a patient歡容熱情面對病人1.004.410.69
Q25Observing the effects of a medication on a patient觀察藥物對病人的影響1.004.370.74
Table
Table 3. The factor loadings of the CDI in EFA.
Table 3. The factor loadings of the CDI in EFA.
ItemFactor Loadings
NurturanceCollaborationSkill
Q10.7080.1960.330
Q30.7020.1900.275
Q40.7850.1530.282
Q60.6650.2130.493
Q70.7090.2580.280
Q80.7070.3820.205
Q100.6390.4640.253
Q110.7560.4390.196
Q130.7580.4650.178
Q230.7020.4280.261
Q240.5670.6100.246
Q120.4960.5710.264
Q150.5930.5430.299
Q160.1570.6980.124
Q170.4730.5550.436
Q190.2350.6850.294
Q210.5520.5680.303
Q220.2910.5860.474
Q20.1710.0850.819
Q50.6000.1670.547
Q90.2800.3460.729
Q140.4030.4540.606
Q180.3310.4400.681
Q200.4120.4920.555
Q250.4650.4280.578
Note: KMO = 0.97, Bartlett’s test of spherical significant with a p-value of <0.001.
Table
Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha for each factor of the CDI.
Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha for each factor of the CDI.
FactorCronbach’s AlphaNumber of Items
Nurturance0.9511
Collaboration0.897
Skill0.927
Overall0.9725
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tong, L.-K.; Zhu, M.-X.; Wang, S.-C.; Cheong, P.-L.; Van, I.-K. A Chinese Version of the Caring Dimensions Inventory: Reliability and Validity Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136834

AMA Style

Tong L-K, Zhu M-X, Wang S-C, Cheong P-L, Van I-K. A Chinese Version of the Caring Dimensions Inventory: Reliability and Validity Assessment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):6834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136834

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tong, Lai-Kun, Ming-Xia Zhu, Si-Chen Wang, Pak-Leng Cheong, and Iat-Kio Van. 2021. "A Chinese Version of the Caring Dimensions Inventory: Reliability and Validity Assessment" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 6834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136834

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop