Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT)
Author(s): Beattie, Michelle
Shepherd, Ashley
Lauder, William
Atherton, Iain
Cowie, Julie
Murphy, Douglas
Contact Email:
Keywords: patient experience
patient satisfaction
Issue Date: 14-Jun-2016
Date Deposited: 17-May-2016
Citation: Beattie M, Shepherd A, Lauder W, Atherton I, Cowie J & Murphy D (2016) Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT). BMJ Open, 6 (6), Art. No.: e010101.
Abstract: Objective: To develop a structurally valid and reliable, yet brief measure of patient experience of hospital quality of care, the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT). Also, to examine aspects of utility of CEFIT.  Background: Measuring quality improvement at the clinical interface has become a necessary component of healthcare measurement and improvement plans, but the effectiveness of measuring such complexity is dependent upon the purpose and utility of the instrument used.  Methods: CEFIT was designed from a theoretical model, derived from the literature and a content validity index (CVI) procedure. A telephone population surveyed 802 eligible participants (healthcare experience within the previous 12 months) to complete CEFIT. Internal consistency reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. Principal component analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure and determine structural validity. Quality criteria was applied to judge aspects of utility.  Results: CVI found a statistically significant proportion of agreement between patient and practitioner experts for CEFIT construction. 802 eligible participants answered the CEFIT questions. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency indicated high reliability (0.78). Inter-item (question) total correlations (0.28-0.73) were used to establish the final instrument. Principal component analysis identified one factor accounting for 57.3% variance. Quality critique rated CEFIT as fair for content validity, excellent for structural validity, good for cost, poor for acceptability and good for educational impact.  Conclusions: CEFIT offers a brief yet structurally sound measure of patient experience of quality of care. The briefness of the five item instrument arguably offers high utility in practice. Further studies are needed to explore the utility of CEFIT to provide a robust basis for feedback to local clinical teams and drive quality improvement in the provision of care experience for patients. Further development of aspects of utility are also required.  STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY  The psychometric findings demonstrate the structural validity and internal consistency of CEFIT to quantify the patient experience of quality of healthcare.  While the large sample (n=802) enabled exploration of the CEFIT structure the findings are limited to an Australian community population, with a healthcare experience, as opposed to inpatients.  Validity and reliability are not all or nothing approaches. Rather, each study with positive results adds to the psychometric strength of the instrument. Further testing of CEFIT is required to establish the utility of CEFIT to measure patient experience of hospital quality of care for quality improvement at a ward/unit level.
DOI Link: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010101
Rights: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:
Licence URL(s):

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
BMJ Open-2016-Beattie-.pdfFulltext - Published Version2.27 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.