ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology reports2021
Validity and reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale-Japanese version.
Article in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the mediating role of rumination on empathy and secondary traumatic stress in nurses: a cross-sectional investigation.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Exposure to secondary traumatic stress and its related factors among emergency nurses in Saudi Arabia: a mixed method study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Measuring job stress of dental workers in China during the COVID-19 pandemic: reliability and validity of the hospital consultants' job stress questionnaire.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Japanese public health nurses classified based on empathy and secondary traumatic stress: variable-centered and person-centered approaches.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale-Chinese Version.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Validity and reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale-Japanese version.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study assessed the validity and reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale-Japanese Version.
methodsThe original Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale was translated into Japanese, and Japanese items were back-translated to English to confirm the accuracy of the translation. A total of 870 public health nurses from the Tohoku region in Japan completed the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale-Japanese Version. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify the number of components. Moreover, 351 public health nurses from the Saitama prefecture in Japan also completed the scale. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed with the factor structure identified in the exploratory factor analysis.
resultsThe exploratory factor analysis identified two components: one associated with client-related distress and the other with trauma-related distress. The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure. The two-factor structure model was better than the three-factor model presented in the original validation study for the English version of the scale. The two-factor model had good internal consistency for the overall product and the subscales. Pearson correlations showed that this model had good convergent validity against the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a psychological measure similar to the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale. Finally, the two-factor model had good discriminant validity against the Maslach Burnout Inventory.
conclusionThis study identified two components of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale-Japanese Version that differ from the three components found in the original English version. The differences in the factor structure might indicate that the factor structure was culturally influenced.
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.