Advanced practice nursing role development: factor analysis of a modified role delineation tool
Article first published online: 27 OCT 2011
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Volume 68, Issue 6, pages 1369–1379, June 2012
How to Cite
Chang, A. M., Gardner, G. E., Duffield, C. and Ramis, M.-A. (2012), Advanced practice nursing role development: factor analysis of a modified role delineation tool. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68: 1369–1379. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05850.x
- Issue published online: 26 APR 2012
- Article first published online: 27 OCT 2011
- Accepted for publication 10 September 2011
- advanced practice nursing;
- factor analysis;
- instrument development;
- nurse’s role;
- nursing evaluation research;
- reliability and validity
chang a.m., gardner g.e., duffield c. & ramis m.a. (2012) Advanced practice nursing role development: factor analysis of a modified role delineation tool. Journal of Advanced Nursing68(6), 1369–1379.
Aim. This study reports the use of exploratory factor analysis to determine construct validity of a modified advanced practice role delineation tool.
Background. Little research exists on specific activities and domains of practice within advanced practice nursing roles, making it difficult to define service parameters of this level of nursing practice. A valid and reliable tool would assist those responsible for employing or deploying advanced practice nurses by identifying and defining their service profile. This is the third article from a multi-phase Australian study aimed at assigning advanced practice roles.
Methods. A postal survey was conducted of a random sample of state government employed Registered Nurses and midwives, across various levels and grades of practice in the state of Queensland, Australia, using the modified Advanced Practice Role Delineation tool. Exploratory factor analysis, using principal axis factoring was undertaken to examine factors in the modified tool. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient determined reliability of the overall scale and identified factors.
Results. There were 658 responses (42% response rate). The five factors found with loadings of ≥400 for 40 of the 41 APN activities were similar to the five domains in the Strong model. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0·94 overall and for the factors ranged from 0·83 to 0·95.
Conclusion. Exploratory factor analysis of the modified tool supports validity of the five domains of the original tool. Further investigation will identify use of the tool in a broader healthcare environment.