Validation of inpatient experience questionnaire

42Citations
Citations of this article
100Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective. Avalidation survey was carried out in this study to assess the acceptability, validity and reliability of the Hong Kong Inpatient Experience Questionnaire (HKIEQ), which was newly developed to measure patient experiences of hospital care in Hong Kong (HK). Design. Cross-sectional validation survey. Main Outcome Measures. Principal component exploratory factor analysis assessed the construct validity of the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha coefficients and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient estimated the reliability of the instrument. Acceptability of the questionnaire regarding the percentage of missing value of individual items was also assessed. Results. A total of 511 patients discharged from public hospitals in HK were interviewed. Low percentage of missing value (0.2 to 21.3%) showed high acceptability. Nine dimensions of hospital care explaining 75.4% of the variance were derived from factor analysis and content validity. These items showed satisfactory internal reliability consistency (0.49 to 0.97). Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.36 to 0.96. Conclusions. The HKIEQ performed well on several psychometric indicators and is a promising measure of patient experience with public hospital inpatient care in HK. The findings provided important insight on developing tools to measure patient experience in hospitals to improve the quality of care and to lay the foundation for further research on patient expectations and needs regarding hospitalization. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wong, E. L. Y., Coulter, A., Cheung, A. W. L., Yam, C. H. K., Yeoh, E. K., & Griffiths, S. (2013). Validation of inpatient experience questionnaire. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 25(4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt034

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free