Validez y fiabilidad de la versión argentina del PCAT-AE para evaluar la atención primaria de salud

• Autor(a) principal: Berra, Silvina
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Outros Autores: Hauser, Lisiane, Audisio, Yanina, Mántaras, José, Nicora, Valeria, Oliveira, Mônica Maria Celestina de, Starfield, Barbara, Harzheim, Erno
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: spa
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/94572
• topic: Atenção primária à saúde; Inquéritos epidemiológicos; Serviços de saúde; Assistência ambulatorial; Argentina; Primary health care; Health surveys; Health services; Ambulatory care; Atención primaria de salud; Encuestas de salud; Servicios de salud; Atención ambulatoria; Argentina

Objective. To determine the validity and reliability of the version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool for adult users, adapted for Argentina (known as AR-PCAT-AE). Methods. Two cross-sectional pilot studies were conducted among people over age 17, largely through self-administered questionnaires. Items that were equivalent to the original version of the PCAT and 13 others proposed for the instruments were analyzed. The factorial validity and reliability of the scores for each dimension were studied. The validity indicators were: factors that had three or more items with a factorial load of > 0.35, item-total correlation > 0.30, and interpretation of the solution according to the theoretical model. Results. The factorial analysis yielded nine factors that explained 57.4% of the variability. Considering the pre-established criteria for validity, two items were excluded from the dimensions of continuity and comprehensiveness and six were added to comprehensiveness and cultural competency. In the dimensions, the percentage of questions with an item-total correlation of greater than 0.30 ranged from 67% to 100% and the Chronbach’s (alpha) coefficient of internal consistency ranged from 0.44 to 0.90. Conclusions. The validity and reliability of the AR-PCAT-AE questionnaire are adequate, maintaining high equivalence with the original version. The process presented could be adopted in other contexts to advance the evaluation of primary health care functions with quality tools.