Development of a factorial survey to explore restricting a child’s movement for a clinical procedure
Questionnaire Previous     Next

Development of a factorial survey to explore restricting a child’s movement for a clinical procedure

Maria Brenner Lecturer, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland

Aim To report on the development of a factorial survey to explore nurses’ participation in restricting children’s movement for clinical procedures in hospital.

Background Exploration of implicit practices, such as restriction, is essential in ensuring that the care delivered to children addresses their developmental needs.

Data sources A questionnaire was developed that consisted of two sections: vignettes and the professional and personal characteristics of the nurse. It was sent to 166 nurses and 105 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 63.3 per cent.

Review methods The development of the factorial survey included identifying and determining the levels of the independent variables, identifying the dependent variable, writing the vignette frame and associated questions, and randomly generating vignettes.

Discussion Reliability of the tool was established as a significant correlation was found for responses with Pearson’s r=0.80. There was a small correlation between five of the 14 variables and the dependent variable ‘likelihood of restricting a child for a clinical procedure’.

Conclusion A factorial survey was found to be a robust tool in exploring a sensitive issue, allowing for the inclusion of multiple variables for consideration in the analysis.

Implications for research/practice The factorial survey enables rigorous exploration of the influences of personal and professional characteristics of a profession across a broad spectrum of clinical scenarios, and offers in-depth insight into the effect of differentiations in these characteristics on a variety of care delivery situations and how they influence behavioural intentions.

Nurse Researcher. 21, 2, 40-48. doi: 10.7748/nr2013.11.21.2.40.e1211

Conflict of interest

None declared

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Received: 01 August 2012

Accepted: 19 February 2013

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or