ArticleMedicine2017
The reliability and validity of a new professionalism assessment scale for young health care workers.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Perception of professionalism among Latin American physicians in 2024: A multi-national survey].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Observational
- East Meets West: A Multisite Validity Study of the China Medical Professionalism Inventory.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Development and validation of self-assessment instrument to measure the digital professionalism of healthcare professionals using social media.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Using Protection Motivation Theory to develop a survey of over-the-counter decision-making by older adults.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of the arabic version of the positive/negative experiences of parents for school-aged students about online learning during COVID-19 pandemic assessment scale.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of the Haze Risk Perception Scale and Influencing Factor Scale-A Study Based on College Students in Beijing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Groningen Frailty Indicator among Lebanese elderly people.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2019Article
- Development and Validation of a Simplified Chinese Version of the Assessment Tool for Students' Perceptions of Medical Professionalism.Current medical science · 2019Article
- Psychometric validation of the identity abuse scale among LGBTQ individuals.Journal of community psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.