Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Acceptance Measure of Quality Improvement Information System among Long-term Care Workers: A Psychometric Assessment

Article information

Res Community Public Health Nurs. 2017;28(4):513-523
Publication date (electronic) : 2017 December 12
doi : https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2017.28.4.513
Taehoon Lee1, Young-il Jung2, Hongsoo Kim,3
1Department of Health Science, Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul, Korea
2Seoul National University Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul, Korea
3Department of Health Science, Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health · Seoul National University Institute of Health and Environment · Seoul National University Institute of Aging, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding author: Kim, Hongsoo Department of Health Science, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea. Tel: +82-2-880-2723, Fax: +82-2-762-9105, E-mail: hk65@snu.ac.kr
Received 2017 August 04; Revised 2017 November 29; Accepted 2017 November 29.

Abstract

Abstract

Purpose

We evaluated the psychometric properties of a questionnaire on the acceptance of the quality improvement information system (QIIS) among long-term care workers (mostly nurses).

Methods

The questionnaire composes of 21 preliminary questions with 5 domains based on the Technology Acceptance Model and related literature reviews. We developed a prototype web-based comprehensive resident assessment system, and collected data from 126 subjects at 75 long-term care facilities and hospitals, who used the system and responded to the questionnaire. A priori factor structure was developed using an exploratory factor analysis and validated by a confirmatory factor analysis; its reliability was also evaluated.

Results

A total of 16 items were yielded, and 5 factors were extracted from the explanatory factor analysis: Usage Intention, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Social Influence, and Innovative Characteristics. The five-factor structure model had a good fit (Tucker-Lewis index [TLI]=.976; comparative fit index [CFI]=.969; standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR]=.052; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=.048), and the items were internally consistent(Cronbach’s ⍺=.91).

Conclusion

The questionnaire was valid and reliable to measure the technology acceptance of QIIS among long-term care workers, using the prototype.

Keywords: Quality improvement; Health information systems; Psychometrics; Long-term care
Figure 1.

A snapshot of the prototype web-based comprehensive resident assessment system used in this study.

Figure 2.

Measurement model.

References

1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. A good life in old age?: Monitoring and improving quality in long-term care Paris: OECD Publishing; 2013. p. 268. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264194564-en.
2. Bezboruah KC, Paulson D, Smith J. Management attitudes and technology adoption in long-term care facilities. Journal of Health Organization and Management 2014;28(3):344–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-11-2011-0118.
3. Ahn JH, Yi SH. Factors associated with usage intention of smart technology in long-term care facilities: Based on the technology acceptance model(TAM & TAM2). Korean Journal of Gerontological Social Welfare 2015;68:357–387.
4. Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: Myths and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2001;64(2-3):143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00200-3.
5. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000;46(2):186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
6. Hudak S, Sharkey S. Health information technology: Are long term care providers ready? [Internet] Oakland (CA): California Health Care Foundation (US); 2007. [cited 2017 August 15]. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2007/04/health-information-technology-are-long-term-care-providers-ready.
7. Yu P, Li H, Gagnon MP. Health IT acceptance factors in longterm care facilities: A cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2009;78(4):219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.006.
8. Chang P, Hsu CL, Liou Y, Kuo YY, Lan CF. Design and development of interface design principles for complex documentation using PDAs. Computers Informatics Nursing 2011;29(3):174–183. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181f9db8c.
9. Vanneste D, Vermeulen B, Declercq A. Healthcare professionals' acceptance of BelRAI, a web-based system enabling person-centred recording and data sharing across care settings with interRAI instruments: A UTAUT analysis. BioMedCentral Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2013;13(1):129–142. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-129.
10. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly 1989;13(3):319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
11. Lee EJ, Seo YJ, Kim YH, Oh JY. Determinants of the intent to use a wireless technology of a university hospital nurses. Korean Journal of Health Policy & Administration 2010;20(3):58–72. https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2010.20.3.058.
12. Ko IS, Chang HJ. Development of extended technology acceptance model on the intention of using PHR. Journal of The Korean Society of Health Informatics and Statistics 2013;38(1):26–38.
13. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2010;43(1):159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002.
14. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989;35(8):982–1003.
15. You JH, Park C. A comprehensive review of technology acceptance model researches. Entrue Journal of Information Technology 2010;9(2):31–50.
16. Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 2008;39(2):273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
17. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly 2003;27(3):425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
18. Schnall R, Bakken S. Testing the technology acceptance model: HIV case managers' intention to use a continuity of care record with context-specific links. Informatics for Health and Social Care 2011;36(3):161–172. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2011.584998.
19. Lee CW, Jang SH. U-healthcare service adaptation in long-term care hospitals-focused on TAM. Productivity Review 2010;24(4):305–332.
20. Yen PY, Sousa KH, Bakken S. Examining construct and predictive validity of the Health-IT usability evaluation scale: Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling results. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2014;21(e2):e241–e248. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001811.
21. June KJ, Kim EY. Development of a database system for home care service based on RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument). The Journal of Korean Community Nursing 2003;14(1):75–82.
22. Gray LC, Berg K, Fries BE, Henrard JC, Hirdes JP, Steel K, et al. Sharing clinical information across care settings: The birth of an integrated assessment system. BioMedCentral Health Services Research 2009;9(1):71–80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-71.
23. Kim HS, Jung YI. A review of studies of comprehensive geriatric assessment using RAI-FC or RAI-HC in South Korea. Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing 2012;14(1):58–68.
24. Hatcher L. A step-by-step approach to using the SAS® system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1994. p. 608.
25. Agarwal R, Prasad J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences 1997;28(3):557–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x.
26. Agarwal R, Prasad J. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences 1999;30(2):361–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01614.x.
27. Chau PY, Hu PJ. Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 2002;18(4):191–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045699.
28. Suh CK, Seong SJ. Individual characteristics affecting user's intention to use internet shopping mall. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems 2004;14(3):1–22.
29. Hong SH. The criteria for selecting appropriate fit indices in structural equation modeling and their rationales. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology 2000;19(1):161–177.
30. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2017 Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

A snapshot of the prototype web-based comprehensive resident assessment system used in this study.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Measurement model.