Methodological assessment of a new scale to measure cardiovascular rehabilitation outcomes, suggesting compelling evidence for effective clinical evaluation.
Introduction: Although segmented evaluation strategies exist to verify the presence of empirical indicators of cardiovascular rehabilitation, no instrument has been found to measure this phenomenon in a unified way, considering its multidimensional nature. Objective: To construct and validate the content of the Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Measurement Scale. Materials and Methods: This is a methodological study, conducted using the premise of the theoretical pole of psychometrics, in two stages: construction of the instrument and content validation by judges. The instrument was constructed by converting operational definitions of rehabilitation markers into behavioral representations of the construct. Validation was enabled by the judgment of nine judges selected through the Lattes Platform. The items were judged based on psychometric criteria. The analysis was based on the content validity index. The binomial test was performed and Cronbach’s alpha was established. Results: A total of 33 items were developed to compose the scale, based on operational definitions of four dimensions of the construct: rehabilitative care, subject, adherence to therapy, and social. Of the 33 items evaluated, 51.5 % had a content validity index equal to 1.00, while 33.3 % had an index equal to 0.97. The judges suggested changes to the spelling of 42 % of the items, and 93 % of the suggestions were accepted. A global validity index of 0.97 and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 were obtained, indicating excellent theoretical formulation. Conclusions: The scale will enable the measurement of cardiovascular rehabilitation from the perspective of clinical care and may be used in the evaluation of nursing care from the perspective of multidimensional interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frota et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: