ArticleInvestigacion y educacion en enfermeria2021
Portuguese validation of the Regret Intensity Scale (RIS-10) for measuring the intensity of regret associated with the provision of attention in health.
Article in Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare-related regret coping and related factors among undergraduate nursing interns: a latent profile analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to adapt and validate the Regret Intensity Scale-10 (RIS-10) for Brazilian health professionals.
methodsThe validation study took place in two phases, in which the first was the translation of the instruments and the second, the field validation using psychometric properties validity and reliability of the scale with 341 professionals (doctors, nurses and physiotherapists) linked to hospitals. Validity was assessed using content validities (six judges evaluation), criteria (correlation with the Life Satisfaction Scale - SWLS and Self-Reporting Questionnaire 20 -SRQ-20) and construct (exploratory analysis using the rotation method Promax, based on the slope graph and the Kaiser criterion and confirmatory using the structural equation model) after applying the questionnaire to professionals.Reliability was measured by Cronbach's α coefficient and retest test over a maximum period of 30 days. Reproducibility was calculated by intraclass correlation.
resultsA total of 341 professionals participated, with an average age of 38.6 ± 9.2 years. The content validity index (CVI) was 1.00, for all items of the scale in the proportion of agreement of the judges. Exploratory factor analysis showed a satisfactory correlation (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.88), suggesting a two-factor model, which comprises the main components of the emotion of regret (Factor I - emoticons, Factor II - feelings), accounting for 64% of the total variation of the first factor. In the confirmation, the index standardized root mean squared residual = 0.063 was close to the acceptable and other values were below. The scale correlated positively with SRQ-20 (p < 0.001) and negatively with SLWS (p = 0.003). Reliability showed (Cronbach's α = 0.863) and test-retest reliability showed lower values than expected. The Bland-Altman graph showed a mean bias of -1.5 with lower and upper limits of 15.8 to 12.8 respectively.
conclusionsThe RIS-10 adapted for the population performed adequately in the psychometric properties evaluated for the assessment of the intensity of regret related to the provision of health care.
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.