Table 1.
Two-factor solution | Four-factor solution | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questionnaire Item* | 1† | 2†† | 1† | 2‡ | 3‡‡ | 4e |
The clinical data in HR ’99 apply to the level in the organization at which I work | −.911 | −.124 | −.865 | −.038 | −.089 | .020 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 are relevant to my work | −.835 | .115 | −.810 | −.031 | .066 | .173 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 are applicable to me and my day to day work | −.631 | .268 | −.696 | .220 | .154 | −.102 |
It is clear from the clinical data in HR ’99 where we have opportunities for improvement | −.060 | .743 | −.079 | .660 | .039 | .123 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 provide insufficient direction for change. (reversed) | .128 | .615 | .116 | .663 | −.046 | .030 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 provide meaningful hospital peer group comparison information | −.081 | .685 | −.108 | .656 | .043 | .045 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 provide direction about actions we can take in order to bring about improvement | −.064 | .695 | −.117 | .627 | .165 | −.029 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 yielded results at a level that is impractical for me. (reversed) | −.202 | .567 | −.214 | .488 | .022 | .121 |
The Clinical Utilization & Outcomes (clinical) data in HR ’99 were collected and reported in a timely fashion | .017 | .521 | −.013 | −.095 | .866 | .118 |
By the time we received the clinical data in HR ’99, they were outdated. (reversed) | .052 | .392 | −.007 | .105 | .468 | −.046 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 were provided by a credible source | −.256 | .374 | −.167 | .024 | −.113 | .657 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 are believable | −.022 | .688 | .063 | .265 | .048 | .628 |
The clinical data in HR ’99 accurately describe one aspect of hospital performance | −.033 | .532 | .029 | .023 | .201 | .562 |
Note that 2 of the 15 items had complex loadings and were therefore removed from the factor analysis, leaving 13 items in this table. In order to have a sufficient sample, EFA (Explanatory Factor Analysis) was performed using a second sample of hospital managers who responded to the same items on a similar questionnaire. Accordingly, n=218 for the EFA
Items relate to data relevance
Items relate to overall data quality issues (including actionability, timeliness, and believability)
Items relate to actionability or, the degree to which clinical data provide direction for how to bring about improvement
Items relate to data timeliness
Items relate to believability/credibility of the data