7 research outputs found

    ASSESSING THE MODEL FIT OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL ITEM RESPONSE THEORY MODELS WITH POLYTOMOUS RESPONSES USING LIMITED-INFORMATION STATISTICS

    Get PDF
    Under item response theory, three types of limited information goodness-of-fit test statistics – M2, Mord, and C2 – have been proposed to assess model-data fit when data are sparse. However, the evaluation of the performance of these GOF statistics under multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models with polytomous data is limited. The current study showed that M2 and C2 were well-calibrated under true model conditions and were powerful under misspecified model conditions. Mord were not well-calibrated when the number of response categories was more than three. RMSEA2 and RMSEAC2 are good tools to evaluate approximate fit. The second study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003) within the IRT framework and estimate C2 and its RMSEA to assess global model-fit. Results showed that the RCI-10 was best represented by a bifactor model. The scores from the RCI-10 could be scored as unidimensional notwithstanding the presence of multidimensionality. Two-factor correlational solution should not be used. Study two also showed that religious commitment is a risk factor of intimate partner violence, whereas spirituality was a protecting factor from the violence. More alcohol was related with more abusive behaviors. Implications of the two studies were discussed

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore