↓ Skip to main content

Development of a Microsoft Excel tool for applying a factor retention criterion of a dimension coefficient to a survey on patient safety culture

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of a Microsoft Excel tool for applying a factor retention criterion of a dimension coefficient to a survey on patient safety culture
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0784-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tsair-Wei Chien, Yang Shao, Dong-Hui Jen

Abstract

Many quality-of-life studies have been conducted in healthcare settings, but few have used Microsoft Excel to incorporate Cronbach's α with dimension coefficient (DC) for describing a scale's characteristics. To present a computer module that can report a scale's validity, we manipulated datasets to verify a DC that can be used as a factor retention criterion for demonstrating its usefulness in a patient safety culture survey (PSC). Microsoft Excel Visual Basic for Applications was used to design a computer module for simulating 2000 datasets fitting the Rasch rating scale model. The datasets consisted of (i) five dual correlation coefficients (correl. = 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, and 1.0) on two latent traits (i.e., true scores) following a normal distribution and responses to their respective 1/3 and 2/3 items in length; (ii) 20 scenarios of item lengths from 5 to 100; and (iii) 20 sample sizes from 50 to 1000. Each item containing 5-point polytomous responses was uniformly distributed in difficulty across a ± 2 logit range. Three methods (i.e., dimension interrelation ≥0.7, Horn's parallel analysis (PA) 95% confidence interval, and individual random eigenvalues) were used for determining one factor to retain. DC refers to the binary classification (1 as one factor and 0 as many factors) used for examining accuracy with the indicators sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The scale's reliability and DC were simultaneously calculated for each simulative dataset. PSC real data were demonstrated with DC to interpret reports of the unit-based construct validity using the author-made MS Excel module. The DC method presented accurate sensitivity (=0.96), specificity (=0.92) with a DC criterion (≥0.70), and AUC (=0.98) that were higher than those of the two PA methods. PA combined with DC yielded good sensitivity (=0.96), specificity (=1.0) with a DC criterion (≥0.70), and AUC (=0.99). Advances in computer technology may enable healthcare users familiar with MS Excel to apply DC as a factor retention criterion for determining a scale's unidimensionality and evaluating a scale's quality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 18%
Arts and Humanities 3 11%
Engineering 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,918,662
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,512
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,018
of 328,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#37
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.