Development of the compliance with mechanical ventilator scale in: A validity and reliability study.

Background Aim Study design Results Conclusions Relevance for Clinical Practice Mechanical ventilation is a widely used treatment modality in cardiac surgery intensive care units (ICUs), especially for patients requiring respiratory support during postoperative management.The aim of this study was to define the process of developing a scale to assess adherence to mechanical ventilation in cardiac surgery patients and to assess the validity and reliability of the scale.This is a scale development and scale validation study. The study was conducted with 222 patients between April and September 2023. In the first stage, face‐to‐face interviews were conducted with seven nurses. Based on the literature review and content analysis of the interviews, the researchers created an item pool. In the second stage, the validity and reliability of the Mechanical Ventilator Compliance Scale in cardiac surgery patients were assessed. The scale was developed to be used by nurses working in cardiac surgery ICUs.The first 36‐item scale was subjected to content validity assessment by 14 experts. It was revised according to the experts' feedback and a content validity criterion of 0.83 was obtained. Confirmatory factor analysis showed good fit values for the scale (χ2/SD = 3.09, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, and RMR = 0.07). Test‐retest analysis to assess the reliability of the scale showed good agreement between responses over time (ICC: 0.932; p < .001). Cronbach's alpha values for the scale and its subscales, behavioural and physical responses were 0.956, 0.949 and 0.912, respectively.The study findings indicate that the scale is a reliable and valid tool for assessing mechanical ventilator compliance in cardiac surgery patients.This study provides nurses in cardiac surgery intensive care units with a measurement tool to objectively assess patients' compliance with mechanical ventilation therapy. The scale provides more reliable results by preventing subjective judgement and estimation in patient assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]