Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26578847›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2015

The Professional Nurse Self-Assessment Scale: Psychometric testing in Norwegian long term and home care contexts.

Elisabeth Finnbakk, Sigrid Wangensteen, Kirsti Skovdahl, Lisbeth Fagerström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Polish Adaptation of the Nurse Professional Competence Scale.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Competence-based performance evaluation in hospital nurses.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elisabeth FinnbakkSchool of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Fakultetsgatan 1, Örebro, 702 81 Sweden ; Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggt. 15 b, Oslo, 0456 Norway.
Sigrid WangensteenFaculty of Health, Care and Nursing, Gjövik University College, Postbox 191, Gjövik, 2802 Norway.
Kirsti SkovdahlFaculty of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Postbox 7053, Drammen, 3007 Norway.
Lisbeth FagerströmSchool of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Fakultetsgatan 1, Örebro, 702 81 Sweden ; Faculty of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Postbox 7053, Drammen, 3007 Norway ; Åbo Akademi University, Vasa Campus, Postbox 311, Vasa, 65101 Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNurses' clinical competence is vital to ensure safe and high quality care, and the continuous assessment of nurses' clinical competence is of major concern. A validated instrument for the self-assessment of nurses' clinical competence at different educational levels across specialties and countries is lacking. The aim of this study was to test the reliability and construct validity of the new Professional Nurse Self-Assessment Scale (ProffNurse SAS) questionnaire in long term and home care contexts in Norway. The questionnaire is based on the Nordic Advanced Practice Nursing model, in which the nurse-patient relationship is central.

methodsThe study has a cross-sectional survey design. A purposive sample of 357 registered nurses who worked in long term and home care contexts in two geographical regions encompassing eight municipalities and three counties was included. The respondents completed the 74-item ProffNurse SAS questionnaire and demographic background data was collected. Data collection was conducted in two phases: first region autumn 2011 and second region spring 2012. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were used to test the psychometric properties of the questionnaire and included the following steps: assessment of the factorality of the data, factor extraction by Principal Component Analysis (PCA), oblimin (oblique) factor rotation, and interpretation. Cronbach's alpha was used to estimate the internal consistency.

resultsThe PCA revealed a six-component structure, reducing the number of items in the questionnaire from 74 to 51. Based on the content of the highest-loading items, the six components were named: Direct Clinical Practice, Professional Development, Ethical Decision-Making, Clinical Leadership, Cooperation and Consultation, and Critical Thinking. The Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.940 (highest; Direct Clinical Practice) to 0.737 (lowest; Critical Thinking), leading to the estimation that the ProffNurse SAS is reliable.

conclusionsThe six components support the study's theoretical framework. The ProffNurse SAS showed acceptable reliability and construct validity and may therefore be a promising instrument for the assessment of practicing nurses' clinical competence. However, we recommend further psychometric testing in other countries and contexts and the inclusion of larger samples of nurses at various levels of education, particularly master's level APNs.

Indexed as

Advanced practice nursingClinical competenceFactor analysisLong term careProfessional home nursingPsychometricsQuestionnairesSelf-assessment

Identifiers

PMID26578847
PMCPMC4647290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.