ArticleNursing open2022
Development and validation of knowledge of caring for COVID-19 tool.
Article in Nursing open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of the educational leadership scale for nursing students: a methodological study.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to assess nursing and allied health students' knowledge and intention to care for patients with COVID-19.Journal of clinical nursing · 2022Article
- Development and validation of knowledge of caring for COVID-19 tool.Nursing open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe aimed to examine the validity and reliability of a newly developed tool that measures nursing and allied health students' knowledge of caring for patients with COVID-19.
methodWe developed in five phases (literature review, item development, expert evaluation using content validity index, revisions based on a pilot test, and exploratory factor and reliability analyses on the data from the main study). We administered online surveys (the pilot test & the main study using a cross-sectional design) to students in a governmental health sciences college in Oman.
resultsThe pilot test had 43 participants, and the main study had 507. The item content validity index scores ranged from 0.81-1.00, and the scale content validity index for 20 items was 0.95. The factor analysis revealed a three-factor solution. The overall Cronbach's alpha for the final (19-item) version of the tool after item deletion was 0.76. The reliabilities for Subscales 1, 2, and 3 were 0.83, 0.67, and 0.51, respectively.
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.