Moral Distress Part II: Critical Review of Measurement
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To review the psychometric properties of various measures of moral distress and to suggest how to improve them. Methods: Related literatures retrieved from several databases up to January 2007 were reviewed in terms of reliability, content validity, construct validity and sensitivity using a checklist based on the guideline of McDowell and Newell. Results: Review of previous research identified three groups of instruments with the total of nine scales. The first group is single item measures. The second group is the scales with limited psychometric information. The third group is the scale with more psychometric information (the scale by Decker, the Moral Distress Scale (MDS) 1995 version by Corley and its modified versions in 2001 and 2005, the Stress of Conscience Questionnaire by Glagberg et al., and the scale by Kälvemark-Sporrong et al. Overall, five scales with more psychometric information are reliable, but more information is needed on their construct validity, factorial validity, and responsiveness. The MDS has more psychometric information than the other scales. Conclusion: Scale development studies for moral distress are in the early stage. Overall, the development of new scales or improvement of the existing ones by theory-driven study is urgently needed. The conceptual framework of care ethics could inform the scale development and research in this area. New instrument should incorporate both general questions and situation-specific questions in the same scale.
Article Details
ผลการวิจัยและความคิดเห็นที่ปรากฏในบทความถือเป็นความคิดเห็นและอยู่ในความรับผิดชอบของผู้นิพนธ์ มิใช่ความเห็นหรือความรับผิดชอบของกองบรรณาธิการ หรือคณะเภสัชศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยสงขลานครินทร์ ทั้งนี้ไม่รวมความผิดพลาดอันเกิดจากการพิมพ์ บทความที่ได้รับการเผยแพร่โดยวารสารเภสัชกรรมไทยถือเป็นสิทธิ์ของวารสารฯ
References
2) McDowell I, Newell C.. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
3) Corley MC, Selig P. Prevalence of principled thinking by critical care nurses. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 1994;13:96–103.
4) Kälvemark-Sporrong S, Höglund AT, Hansson MG, Westerholm P, Arnetz B.”We are white coats whirling round”–moral distress in Swedish pharmacies. Pharm World Sci 2005; 27:223-9.
5) Hanna DR. Moral distress redefined: the lived experience of moral distress of nurses who participated in legal, elective, surgically induced abortions [dissertation]. Boston: Boston College; 2002.
6) Decker F. Socialization and interpersonal environment in nurses' affective reactions to work. Soc Sci Med 1985;20:499-509.
7) Corley MC. Moral distress of critical care nurses. Am J Crit Care 1995;4:280-5.
8) Corley MC, Minick P, Elswick RK, Jacobs M. Nurse moral distress and ethical work environment. Nurs Ethics 2005;12:381-90.
9) Kälvemark-Sporrong S, Höglund AT, Arnetz B. Measuring moral distress in pharmacy and clinical practice. Nurs Ethics 2006;13:416-27.
10) Glasberg AL, Eriksson S, Dahlqvist V, Lindahl E, Strandberg G, Soderberg A, et al. Development and initial validation of the Stress of Conscience Questionnaire. Nurs Ethics 2006;13:633-48.
11) Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill; 1994.
12) Jameton A. Nursing Practice: The Ethical Issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984.
13) Corley M, Jacobs M, Minick P. Ethical work environment, nurse moral distress, and patient satisfaction with participation in treatment decision making [Abstract] . In: Proceedings of the Association for Health Services Research Annual Meeting; 2000 Jun 26; Los Angeles, CA.
14) Corley MC, Elswick RK, Gorman M, Clor T. Development and evaluation of a moral distress scale. J Adv Nurs 2001;33:250-6.
15) Glasberg AL, Eriksson S, Norberg A. Burnout and 'stress of conscience' among healthcare personnel. J Adv Nurs 2007;57:392-403.
16) Gastmans C. The care perspective in health care ethics. In: Davis A, Tschudin V, De Raeve T, editors. Essentials of teaching and learning in nursing ethics. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2006. p.135-48.
