Validity Testing of the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS)

Genetics and genomics have the potential to change how health care providers screen for, diagnose, and treat diseases; as well as how they intervene to reduce disease risk. Because genetics/genomics play a role in disease prevention and health promotion, screening, diagnosis, treatment selection, and patient-education, all nurses must adopt genetics and genomics into clinical practice to provide competent care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the face, content, and construct validity of the Genetics and Genomics Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS). The GGNPS is an instrument designed to measure Registered Nurses’ (RNs) competency/knowledge, confidence, attitudes/receptivity and decision/adoption of genetics and genomics into nursing practice, as well as the effect of social systems. Validity testing of the GGNPS can increase its utility as part of a strategic pathway to achieve genetic/genomic competency among RNs. In this study, the thresholds for content and face validity were met, but construct validity was not established. Construct validity was evaluated via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM). An ancillary analysis, which included exploratory v factor analysis (EFA), was used to further inform this study and guide construct validity evaluation in future studies

Validity evaluation of the genetics and genomics in nursing practice survey

Aim: To psychometrically test the Genetics and Genomics Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS) for evidence of content, face and construct validity. Design:This study was a secondary data analysis. Method: Data collected from the Method for Introducing a New Competency into Nursing Practice (MINC) study were used to evaluate the GGNPS for evidence of construct validity via structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis. Face validity was evaluated via feedback from practicing RNs without specific experience with or knowledge of genetics/genomics. Content validity was evaluated via content expert feedback and assessment of a content validity index. Results: The thresholds for evidence of content and face validity were met. However, we found less evidence for construct validity of the GGNPS; an exploratory factor analysis, conducted to gain additional insight into the theorized latent constructs, determined that the variables were more interrelated that previously predicted