ArticleJournal of nursing measurement2016
Test-Retest Reliability of the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey Instrument.
Article in Journal of nursing measurement, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurses' Genomic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Organizational Support: A Comparative Secondary Analysis of Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey Data.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Integration of Genetics and Genomics Into Nursing Practice.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026Article
- Assessing Genomic Competencies: Insights From the Genetics and Genomics Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS).Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
- Oncology nurses' readiness to implement genomics-informed care: A descriptive, cross-sectional study in a Canadian province.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2026Article
- Article
- The Genomic Essential Competencies Expected for all Registered Nurses.The Nursing clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- A Scoping Review: Do instruments measuring genomic competence in nursing incorporate ethics?Nursing open · 2023Article
- Test/Retest Reliability of a Turkish Version of the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey.Journal of nursing measurement · 2022Article
- The Development of Education of Public Health Nurses for Applying Genomics in Preventive Health Care.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Development of a Nutrition Questionnaire for Dental Caries Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Validity evaluation of the genetics and genomics in nursing practice survey.Nursing open · 2019Article
- A Comparison of Physicians' and Nurse Practitioners' Use of Race in Clinical Decision-Making.Ethnicity & disease · 2019Article
- Nurses' Use of Race in Clinical Decision Making.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2016Article
- Review
- Hospital nursing leadership-led interventions increased genomic awareness and educational intent in Magnet settings.Nursing outlookArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeAssessment of nursing genomic competency is critical given increasing genomic applications to health care. The study aims were to determine the test-retest reliability of the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS), which measures this competency, and to revise the survey accordingly.
methodsRegistered nurses (n = 232) working at 2 Magnet-designated hospitals participating in a multiinstitutional genomic competency study completed the GGNPS. Cohen's kappa and weighted kappa were used to measure the agreement of item responses between Time 1 and Time 2. Survey items were revised based on the results.
resultsMean agreement for the instrument was 0.407 (range = 0.150-1.000). Moderate agreement or higher was achieved in 39% of the items.
conclusionsGGNPS test-retest reliability was not optimal, and the instrument was refined based on the study findings. Further testing of the revised instrument is planned to assess the instrument performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.