ArticleBMC health services research2021
Development and validation of the medical professionals resilience scale.
Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Academic Resilience Scale-30 for Responses to Adverse Workplace Performance Evaluation Among Greek Public Healthcare Employees.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mediating effects of positive coping styles among oncology nurses between psychological resilience and professional grief: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Validation and psychometric testing of the care-related regret intensity scale among clinical nurses: a methodological study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- A Resilience Framework for Research in Oncology Massage Therapy.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2025Article
- Validation of a Scientific Authority Questionnaire for Faculty Members in Medical Science Universities: A Cross-Sectional Study in Iran.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Academic resilience in medical students: exploring students' perception of social support provided by peers and teachers to help at-risk students for the successful academic journey.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Towards Standardization of CGM Performance Studies: The QUSS-CGM Questionnaire for Assessing User Satisfaction.Patient related outcome measures · 2025Article
- Research hotspots and trends in healthcare workers' resilience: A bibliometric and visualized analysis.Heliyon · 2024Review
- The impact of the Systematic Assessment for Resilience (SAR) framework on students' resilience, anxiety, depression, burnout, and academic-related stress: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Conceptualisation and Development of a values-based scale of emergency physicians' professional identities.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- The development and validation of a new resilience inventory based on inner strength.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The resilience of nursing staffs in nursing homes: concept development applying a hybrid model.BMC nursing · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMost of the resilience scales were developed for the non-medical population, therefore the purpose of this study was developing and validating a resilience scale for medical professionals - namely Medical Professionals Resilience Scale (MeRS).
methodsA questionnaire development and validation study was conducted. The resilience domains and items were identified and generated through a literature review. The content validation was carried out by content experts and the content validity index (CVI) was calculated. The face validation was performed by medical officers and the face validity index (FVI) was calculated. The final MeRS was administered to 167 medical officers, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis were performed to assess MeRS's factorial structure and internal consistency.
resultsFour domains with 89 items of medical professionals' resilience were developed. Following that, the content and face validation was conducted, and a total of 41-items remained for construct validation. EFA extracted four factors, namely growth, control, involvement, and resourceful, with a total of 37 items. The items' CVI and FVI values were more than 0.80. The final MeRS's items had factor loading values ranged from 0.41 to 0.76, and the Cronbach's alpha values of the resilience domains ranged from 0.72 to 0.89.
conclusionsMeRS is a promising scale for measuring medical professionals' resilience as it showed good psychometric properties. This study provided validity evidence in terms of content, response process, and internal structure that supported the validity of MeRS in the measurement of resilience domains among medical professionals.
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.