Cited by 70Health Education and ValidationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and Education

Development of a tool to assess fidelity to a psycho-educational intervention

Open access
Song, Mi‐Kyung, Happ, Mary Beth, Sandelowski, Margarete·2010·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

AIM: This paper is a description of a method to develop and conduct a customized psycho-educational intervention fidelity assessment as part of pilot work for an efficacy study. A tool designed to assess treatment fidelity to a psycho-education intervention for patients with end-stage renal disease and their surrogate decision makers, Sharing the Patient's Illness Representations to Increase Trust, is presented as an illustration. BACKGROUND: Despite the specificity and idiosyncrasy of individual interventions and the call to systematically evaluate treatment fidelity, how to accomplish this goal has not been clarified. Tools to adequately measure treatment fidelity are lacking. METHODS: We developed the Sharing the Patient's Illness Representations to Increase Trust Treatment Fidelity Assessment tool by identifying elements that were idiosyncratic to the intervention and those that could be adapted from existing tools. The tool has four components: overall adherence to the intervention content elements; pacing of the intervention delivery; overall dyad responsiveness; and, overall quality index of intervention delivery. The study was undertaken between 2006 and 2008. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.80 to 0.87 for the four components. The tool showed utility in training and monitoring, such as detecting unplanned content elements delivered and the use of proscribed communication behaviours. CONCLUSION: Psycho-educational interventions are one of the most common types of nursing interventions worldwide. Use of fidelity assessment tools customized to the individual interventions may enhance systematic evaluation of training and monitoring treatment fidelity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05216.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, M., Happ, M. B., & Sandelowski, M.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-09
Volume
66
Issue
3
Pages
673-682
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2061106145
Cited by
70
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
10.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Nursing Research (R21NR009662, K24NR010244, R01NR011464)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
intervention fidelity, psychoeducational intervention, end-stage renal disease, surrogate decision makers, illness representations, trust, inter-rater reliability, nursing interventions
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Kidney Failure, Chronic, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Psychotherapy, Terminal Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review