Pain Management Nursing
Volume 11, Issue 2 , Pages 68-75, June 2010

Role Delineation Study for the American Society for Pain Management Nursing

  • Joyce S. Willens, PhD, RN, BC

      Affiliations

    • College of Nursing, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania
  • ,
  • Christine DePascale, MS

      Affiliations

    • American Nurses Credentialing Center, Silver Spring, Maryland
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Christine DePascale, MS, Test Development Specialist, American Nurses Credentialing Center, 8515 Georgia Ave, Suite 400, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3492.
  • ,
  • James Penny, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Castle Worldwide, Morrisville, North Carolina

Received 2 February 2010; received in revised form 23 March 2010; accepted 28 March 2010.

Abstract 

A role delineation study, or job analysis, is a necessary step in the development of a quality credentialing program. The process requires a logical approach and systematic methods to have an examination that is legally defensible. There are three main phases: initial development and evaluation, validation study, and development of test specifications. In the first phase, the content expert panel discussed performance domains that exist in pain management nursing. The six domains developed were: 1) assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of pain; 2) pharmacologic pain management; 3) nonpharmacologic pain management; 4) therapeutic communication and counseling; 5) patient and family teaching; and 6) collaborative and organizational activities. The panel then produced a list of 70 task statements to develop an online survey which was sent to independent reviewers with expertise in pain management nursing. After the panel reviewed the results of the pilot test, it was decided to clarify a few items that did not perform as expected. After the questionnaire was finalized it was distributed to 1,500 pain management nurses. The final yield was 585 usable returns, for a response rate of 39%. Thirty-three percent of the respondents reported a bachelor's degree in nursing as the highest degree awarded. Over 80% indicated that they were certified in pain management. Over 35% reported working in a staff position, 14% as a nurse practitioner, and 13% as a clinical nurse specialist. Part of the questionnaire asked the participants to rate performance expectation, consequence or the likelihood that the newly certified pain management nurse could cause harm, and the frequency of how often that nurse performs in each of the performance domains. The performance expectation was rated from 0 (the newly certified pain management nurse was not at all expected to perform the domain task) to 2 (after 6 months the newly certified pain management nurse would be expected to perform the domain task). The consequences of the degree would be the inability of the newly certified pain management nurse to perform duties or tasks in each domain was rated from 0 (no harm) to 4 (extreme harm). The first domain received the highest average frequency rating. The pharmacologic domain received the highest mean rating on consequence. The reliability of all scales was 0.95 or higher, which indicated that the questionnaire consistently measured what it was intended to measure. The quality of the questionnaire is an indicator that certification is one measure of nursing excellence.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 12.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1524-9042(10)00041-X

doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2010.03.010

Pain Management Nursing
Volume 11, Issue 2 , Pages 68-75, June 2010