Validation and reliability of the Care Vulnerability Index: A study by interrater agreement and test-retest method.
Marta Fernández Batalla, Enrique Monsalvo San Macario, Alexandra González Aguña and 6 others
PMID 35261198WHAT IT FOUND
Experts rated all Care Vulnerability Index items appropriate, and the same people gave similar vulnerability scores two weeks apart.
One check of whether the items fit together was weak, and it is not proven to change patient outcomes.
Key findings
01After two expert rounds, all Care Vulnerability Index items were rated appropriate, and the total content validity ratio was 0.879.
02In 96 participants, the same people gave similar scores two weeks apart, with a correlation of 0.912 and no significant mean difference (-0.006, p = 0.6168).
03Total Cronbach's alpha was 0.460 in the 211-person sample, which the authors attributed to the scale being multidimensional.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample was drawn from five neighbourhoods in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, and all participants were Spanish speakers, so the results may not apply to other languages, cultures, hospital patients or more dependent people. The participant flow is unclear: the paper reports 211 initial participants, says 104 agreed and met criteria, excludes 8 to reach 96, yet calculates Cronbach's alpha on n = 211. Content validity relied on 11 experts rating items, and the paper notes expert feedback can be subjective and biased. Internal consistency was low, with Cronbach's alpha 0.460, although the authors explain this by the scale being multidimensional rather than measuring one construct. Only content validity and two-week score stability were examined; the paper did not show that CVI predicts health outcomes, guides care decisions, or works after translation into English. The questionnaire was assisted by the researcher during application, which may not match routine nurse-led use.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the Care Vulnerability Index as proven to predict health outcomes or improve nursing care. It showed only expert-rated content validity and two-week score stability, with low internal consistency and no validation outside Spanish-speaking community populations.