Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28640082›Full record

ArticleMedicine2017

The reliability and validity of a new professionalism assessment scale for young health care workers.

Jianjun Wang, Bosheng He, Xudong Miao, Xiaoqin Huang, Yihua Lu, Jianrong Chen

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Jianjun WangPresident's Office Department of Radiology Department of Scientific Research and Teaching, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
Bosheng He
Xudong Miao
Xiaoqin Huang
Yihua Lu
Jianrong Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the development of medical technique, many medical challenges have been solved. This cross-sectional study was aimed to assess the reliability and validity of a new developed scale for assessing the professionalism of young health care workers.This cross-sectional population-based study was conducted based on cluster sampling method in 2015. The participants were from 2 medical centers of Nantong city of Jiangsu province in China. The internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and split-half reliability coefficients. Construct validity was analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Content, convergent, and discriminant validities were also assessed in this study.Total 749 individuals aged 29.09 ± 3.91 years old participated in this investigation. There were 745 valid questionnaires and 730 were complete. Cronbach's alpha value (0.944) and the split-half reliability coefficient (0.873) reflected satisfactory internal consistency reliability of this new professionalism assessment scale. EFA extracted a 7-factor model. About 63.4% of the total variance was explained by these factors. However, CFA showed a good model fit after excluding the items with factor loading lower than 0.5. Good discriminant validity of this new developed professionalism assessment scale was also shown (P < .05). However, the evidences for content and convergent validity were not enough in this study.The results showed the satisfactory reliability of this new developed professionalism assessment scale. However, this scale should be modified to improve the validity in further studies.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelProfessional CompetenceProfessionalismSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAnalysis of VarianceChinaCluster AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleQuality ImprovementReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28640082
PMCPMC5484190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.