<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec id="j_FON-2019-0016_s_006_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c17b1Aa"><h3>Objective</h3><p>To follow the guidelines of intercultural adaptation provided by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee, translating the original scale and evaluating the reliability and validity, and then to compile the Chinese version of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS) for nurses in emergency room in the mainland of China.</p></sec><sec id="j_FON-2019-0016_s_007_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c17b2Aa"><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study consists of two phases of testing: (1) translation: forward translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pretesting; (2) psychometric properties: content and construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability.</p></sec><sec id="j_FON-2019-0016_s_008_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c17b3Aa"><h3>Results</h3><p>The Chinese version of MAVAS and the original version showed excellent similarities and equivalence. The average Scale-level Content Validity Index was 0.904, and the Item-level Content Validity Index ranged from 0.80 to 1.00. The construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL 8.7; χ2/<italic>df</italic> of the scale was 4.781&lt;5, NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI>0.90, indicating that the scale’s factor structure model fitted better. The internal consistency was satisfactory (scale, Cronbach’s α=0.94; subscales, Cronbach’s α=0.74–0.90), and the test–retest reliability over 2 weeks was good (scale, Pearson’s coefficient=0.996; subscales, Pearson’s coefficient=0.801–0.963).</p></sec><sec id="j_FON-2019-0016_s_009_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c17b4Aa"><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Chinese version of MAVAS had an excellent feasibility. It was found to be a valid and reliable tool to assess nurses’ attitude toward patients’ violence in emergency department.</p></sec></abstract>

ObjectiveTo follow the guidelines of intercultural adaptation provided by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee, translating the original scale and evaluating the reliability and validity, and then to compile the Chinese version of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS) for nurses in emergency room in the mainland of China.MethodsThis study consists of two phases of testing: (1) translation: forward translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pretesting; (2) psychometric properties: content and construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability.ResultsThe Chinese version of MAVAS and the original version showed excellent similarities and equivalence. The average Scale-level Content Validity Index was 0.904, and the Item-level Content Validity Index ranged from 0.80 to 1.00. The construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL 8.7; χ2/df of the scale was 4.781<5, NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI>0.90, indicating that the scale’s factor structure model fitted better. The internal consistency was satisfactory (scale, Cronbach’s α=0.94; subscales, Cronbach’s α=0.74–0.90), and the test–retest reliability over 2 weeks was good (scale, Pearson’s coefficient=0.996; subscales, Pearson’s coefficient=0.801–0.963).ConclusionsThe Chinese version of MAVAS had an excellent feasibility. It was found to be a valid and reliable tool to assess nurses’ attitude toward patients’ violence in emergency department.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale for nurse in emergency department

Frontiers of Nursing

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

ObjectiveTo follow the guidelines of intercultural adaptation provided by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee, translating the original scale and evaluating the reliability and validity, and then to compile the Chinese version of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS) for nurses in emergency room in the mainland of China.MethodsThis study consists of two phases of testing: (1) translation: forward translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pretesting; (2) psychometric properties: content and construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability.ResultsThe Chinese version of MAVAS and the original version showed excellent similarities and equivalence. The average Scale-level Content Validity Index was 0.904, and the Item-level Content Validity Index ranged from 0.80 to 1.00. The construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL 8.7; χ2/df of the scale was 4.7810.90, indicating that the scale’s factor structure model fitted better. The internal consistency was satisfactory (scale, Cronbach’s α=0.94; subscales, Cronbach’s α=0.74–0.90), and the test–retest reliability over 2 weeks was good (scale, Pearson’s coefficient=0.996; subscales, Pearson’s coefficient=0.801–0.963).ConclusionsThe Chinese version of MAVAS had an excellent feasibility. It was found to be a valid and reliable tool to assess nurses’ attitude toward patients’ violence in emergency department.

ObjectiveTo follow the guidelines of intercultural adaptation provided by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) Evidence-Based Medicine...

Item	CR	Correlation coefficient

Item 1	5.708	0.570
Item 2	6.415	0.571
Item 3	4.773	0.696
Item 4	5.027	0.516
Item 5	4.286	0.459
Item 6	8.368	0.685
Item 7	8.942	0.757
Item 8	10.712	0.808
Item 9	10.449	0.756
Item 10	8.068	0.667
Item 11	7.599	0.732
Item 12	10.718	0.825
Item 13	8.874	0.739
Item 14	12.000	0.832
Item 15	6.437	0.633
Item 16	6.435	0.717
Item 17	3.334	0.342
Item 18	10.509	0.762
Item 19	7.573	0.689
Item 20	5.150	0.512
Item 21	7.273	0.650
Item 22	8.547	0.641
Item 23	4.247	0.437
Item 24	6.315	0.363
Item 25	5.092	0.580

Project	Frequency (%)

Gender
Female	117 (86.7)
Male	18 (13.3)
Age (years)
20–29	62 (45.9)
30–39	62 (45.9)
40–49	11 (8.2)
Educational background
College	15 (11.1)
Undergraduate	119 (88.1)
Master and above	1 (0.8)
Job title
Nurse	27 (20)
Primary	71 (52.6)
Intermediate	36 (26.7)
Deputy Chief	1 (0.7)
Job position
Nurse	131 (97.0)
Head nurse	4 (3.0)
Marital Status
Unmarried	41 (30.4)
Married	94 (69.6)
Hiring form
Formal establishment	38 (28.2)
Contract system	96 (71.1)
Temporary workers	1 (0.7)
Only child
Yes	37 (27.4)
No	98 (72.6)
Work experience of nursing (years)
0–5	52 (38.5)
6–10	41 (30.4)
11–15	18 (13.3)
16–20	16 (11.9)
>20	8 (5.9)
Work experience in ED (years)
0–5	62 (45.9)
6–10	35 (25.9)
11–15	21 (15.6)
16–20	11 (8.1)
>20	6 (4.5)
Education related to management of patient violence
Yes	44 (32.6)
No	91 (67.4)
Experiences in management of patient violence
Yes	73 (54.1)
No	62 (45.9)
Interventions in managing patient violence
Physical constraints	20 (14.8)
Risk assessment	33 (24.4)
De-escalation	49 (36.3)
Drug intervention	3 (2.2)
Seclusion	6 (4.4)
Others	24 (17.9)
Experienced patient violence
Yes	70 (51.9)
No	65 (48.1)
History of being verbally abused in the past 6 months
No	49 (36.3)
Yes	86 (63.7)
1–5 times	61 (45.2)
6–10 times	13 (9.6)
11–15 times	3 (2.2)
16–20 times	0 (0)
>20 times	9 (6.7)
History of being physical aggression in the past 6 months
No	122 (90.4)
Yes (1-5times)	13 (9.6)

Item	Loading	Standard error	P

Internal
A1	0.68	0.07	<0.05
A2	0.70	0.07	<0.05
A3	0.81	0.06	<0.05
A4	0.76	0.08	<0.05
A5	0.43	0.08	<0.05
External
A6	0.82	0.07	<0.05
A7	0.98	0.06	<0.05
A8	1.00	0.05	<0.05
Interaction
A9	0.98	0.06	<0.05
A10	0.79	0.06	<0.05
A11	0.88	0.06	<0.05
A12	0.98	0.05	<0.05
A13	0.96	0.06	<0.05
Management
A14	0.97	0.05	<0.05
A15	0.85	0.07	<0.05
A16	0.85	0.06	<0.05
A17	0.29	0.07	<0.05
A18	0.92	0.06	<0.05
A19	0.75	0.06	<0.05
A20	0.50	0.07	<0.05
A21	0.64	0.06	<0.05
A22	0.62	0.07	<0.05
A23	0.35	0.07	<0.05
A24	0.54	0.07	<0.05
A25	0.64	0.06	<0.05

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale for nurse in emergency department

Article Category: Original article

Published Online: Jul 10, 2019

Page range: 107 - 114

Received: Jul 24, 2018

Accepted: Sep 29, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/FON-2019-0016

Keywords
violence, cross-cultural adaptation, MAVAS, emergency department, ED, psychometric properties

© 2019 Rui Chang and Hui Yang, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Item analysis of the pilot MAVAS.

General demographic data of the study (n=135).

Results of CFA of coefficient estimation.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale for nurse in emergency department

Article Category: Original article

Published Online: Jul 10, 2019

Page range: 107 - 114

Received: Jul 24, 2018

Accepted: Sep 29, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/FON-2019-0016

Keywordsviolence, cross-cultural adaptation, MAVAS, emergency department, ED, psychometric properties

© 2019 Rui Chang and Hui Yang, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Item analysis of the pilot MAVAS.

General demographic data of the study (n=135).

Results of CFA of coefficient estimation.

Keywords
violence, cross-cultural adaptation, MAVAS, emergency department, ED, psychometric properties