ArticleNursing open2021
Translation, reliability and validity of Japanese version the TeamSTEPPS® teamwork perceptions questionnaire.
Article in Nursing open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitating Teamwork With Minimal Interaction via a Mesh-Based Communication Device in a Clinical Nursing Setting: Intervention Study.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Psychometric testing of the Iranian version of the TeamSTEPPS teamwork perception questionnaire: a cross-cultural validation study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Translation, reliability and validity of Japanese version the TeamSTEPPS® teamwork perceptions questionnaire.Nursing open · 2021Article
- Influence of Mutual Support on Burnout among Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Professionals.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to translate the TeamSTEPPS® Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (T-TPQ) into Japanese and assess its validity and reliability. Design: Translation of the T-TPQ and a cross-sectional survey. Methods: Following a forward and back translation of the questionnaire, content validity was assessed by an expert panel using item-level content validity index. Construct validity was assessed by a confirmatory factor analysis. Further, intraclass correlation coefficient was estimated by test-retest methods. Results: A total of 587 healthcare professionals responded to the translated T-TPQ. The item-level content validity index ranged between 0.8 and 1.0, indicating an acceptable content validity. The multiple fit indices showed an acceptable fitting model. Fifty-one healthcare professionals participated in the test-retest method. Intraclass correlation coefficients for all dimensions ranged from 0.838 to 0.957, indicating acceptable test-retest reliability. Our findings suggest that the Japanese version of the T-TPQ has acceptable validity and reliability.
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.