| Literature DB >> 27184743 |
Ana Paula Teixeira de Almeida Vieira Monteiro1, Alexandre Bastos Fernandes2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cultural competence is an essential component in rendering effective and culturally responsive services to culturally and ethnically diverse clients. Still, great difficulty exists in assessing the cultural competence of mental health nurses. There are no Portuguese validated measurement instruments to assess cultural competence in mental health nurses. This paper reports a study testing the reliability and validity of the Portuguese version of the Multicultural Mental Health Awareness Scale-MMHAS in a sample of Portuguese nurses.Entities:
Keywords: Cultural competence; Instrument reliability; Instrument validity; Mental Health Nurses; Multicultural awareness; Multicultural nursing; Psychometric testing
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27184743 PMCID: PMC4869268 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-016-0848-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Sociodemographic characterization of the sample
| Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Age range | ||
| [20–30[ | 104 | 34.0 |
|
|
| |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 77 | 25.2 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 133 | 43.5 |
| Profissional status | ||
| RN | 300 | 98.0 |
| Professional experience (years) | ||
| < 5 | 82 | 26.8 |
|
| ||
Loadings (item-component correlations) obtained by PCA
| Item | Factors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | C2 | C3 | |
| 1. | 0.147 | 0.508 | 0.222 |
| 2. | 0.278 | 0.602 | 0.191 |
| 3. | 0.214 | 0.703 | 0.199 |
| 4. | 0.128 | 0.810 | 0.093 |
| 5. | 0.192 | 0.749 | 0.164 |
| 6. | 0.174 | 0.792 | 0.188 |
| 7. | 0.221 | 0.626 | 0.346 |
| 8. | 0.148 | 0.782 | 0.182 |
| 9. | 0.143 | 0.810 | 0.183 |
| 10. | 0.047 | 0.788 | 0.262 |
| 11. | 0.101 | 0.625 | 0.362 |
| 12. | 0.614 | 0.246 | 0.062 |
| 13. | 0.715 | 0.224 | 0.147 |
| 14. | 0.842 | 0.152 | 0.141 |
| 15. | 0.840 | 0.130 | 0.168 |
| 16. | 0.746 | 0.111 | 0.251 |
| 17. | 0.584 | 0.300 | 0.261 |
| 18. | 0.731 | 0.136 | 0.304 |
| 19. | 0.743 | 0.095 | 0.281 |
| 20. | 0.767 | 0.137 | 0.273 |
| 21. | 0.648 | 0.154 | 0.252 |
| 22. | 0.509 | 0.283 | 0.397 |
| 23. | 0.544 | 0.260 | 0.356 |
| 24. | 0.659 | 0.090 | 0.316 |
| 25. | 0.273 | 0.050 | 0.551 |
| 26. | 0.302 | 0.089 | 0.541 |
| 27. | 0.287 | 0.222 | 0.707 |
| 28. | 0.241 | 0.221 | 0.751 |
| 29. | 0.346 | 0.271 | 0.711 |
| 30. | 0.225 | 0.281 | 0.765 |
| 31. | 0.181 | 0.349 | 0.747 |
| 32. | 0.332 | 0.213 | 0.692 |
| 33. | 0.159 | 0.263 | 0.748 |
| 34. | 0.189 | 0.276 | 0.667 |
| 35. | 0.104 | 0.289 | 0.519 |
| Value | 14.8 | 3.7 | 2.3 |
| Explained variance. (%) | 42.3 | 10.5 | 6.6 |
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Reliability Statistics-Cronbach’s α coefficients of reliability
| Item | Awareness | Knowledge | Skills | Total MMHAS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | |
| 01 | – | – | 0.524 | 0.928 | – | – | 0.459 | 0.958 |
| 02 | – | – | 0.630 | 0.924 | – | – | 0.572 | 0.957 |
| 03 | – | – | 0.705 | 0.921 | – | – | 0.587 | 0.957 |
| 04 | – | – | 0.756 | 0.918 | – | – | 0.528 | 0.958 |
| 05 | – | – | 0.727 | 0.920 | – | – | 0.578 | 0.957 |
| 06 | – | – | 0.773 | 0.918 | – | – | 0.603 | 0.957 |
| 07 | – | – | 0.673 | 0.923 | – | – | 0.639 | 0.957 |
| 08 | – | – | 0.760 | 0.918 | – | – | 0.579 | 0.957 |
| 09 | – | – | 0.785 | 0.917 | – | – | 0.589 | 0.957 |
| 10 | – | – | 0.767 | 0.918 | – | – | 0.564 | 0.957 |
| 11 | – | – | 0.650 | 0.923 | – | – | 0.570 | 0.957 |
| 12 | 0.571 | 0.938 | – | – | – | – | 0.520 | 0.958 |
| 13 | 0.704 | 0.934 | – | – | – | – | 0.627 | 0.957 |
| 14 | 0.799 | 0.931 | – | – | – | – | 0.665 | 0.957 |
| 15 | 0.798 | 0.931 | – | – | – | – | 0.667 | 0.957 |
| 16 | 0.737 | 0.933 | – | – | – | – | 0.645 | 0.957 |
| 17 | 0.652 | 0.936 | – | – | – | – | 0.649 | 0.957 |
| 18 | 0.757 | 0.932 | – | – | – | – | 0.679 | 0.957 |
| 19 | 0.746 | 0.932 | – | – | – | – | 0.650 | 0.957 |
| 20 | 0.778 | 0.932 | – | – | – | – | 0.688 | 0.957 |
| 21 | 0.663 | 0.935 | – | – | – | – | 0.605 | 0.957 |
| 22 | 0.677 | 0.935 | – | – | – | – | 0.731 | 0.956 |
| 23 | 0.693 | 0.934 | – | – | – | – | 0.717 | 0.956 |
| 24 | 0.688 | 0.934 | – | – | – | – | 0.614 | 0.957 |
| 25 | – | – | – | – | 0.546 | 0.922 | 0.493 | 0.958 |
| 26 | – | – | – | – | 0.577 | 0.920 | 0.526 | 0.958 |
| 27 | – | – | – | – | 0.728 | 0.913 | 0.677 | 0.957 |
| 28 | – | – | – | – | 0.767 | 0.912 | 0.672 | 0.957 |
| 29 | – | – | – | – | 0.789 | 0.911 | 0.744 | 0.956 |
| 30 | – | – | – | – | 0.779 | 0.911 | 0.701 | 0.957 |
| 31 | – | – | – | – | 0.768 | 0.912 | 0.698 | 0.957 |
| 32 | – | – | – | – | 0.740 | 0.913 | 0.692 | 0.957 |
| 33 | – | – | – | – | 0.734 | 0.913 | 0.641 | 0.957 |
| 34 | – | – | – | – | 0.691 | 0.915 | 0.622 | 0.957 |
| 35 | – | – | – | – | 0.523 | 0.925 | 0.491 | 0.958 |
| Cronbach’s Alpha | 0.938 | 0.927 | 0.922 | 0.958 | ||||
A-Item-total correlation; B-Cronbach’s Alpha if item Deleted