ReviewMedical education online2022
Development and psychometric testing of a scale measuring caring behaviors for healthcare students and providers.
Review in Medical education online, 2022. 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.
- Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study intended to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a caring behavior scale on healthcare students and providers (CBS-HSP) in a Taiwanese population. After a literature review was conducted and an expert panel was consulted for item generation, 104 items for the CBS-HSP scale were derived on a nine-point Likert scale, with 9 indicating 'extremely important' and 1 indicating 'extremely unimportant.' A pilot study was then conducted with seven hundred forty-eight healthcare students and providers in Taiwan for further data analysis. The statistic software used in the study was SPSS for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and AMOS for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Also, to examine the psychometric properties of the scale, internal consistency, convergent validities, discriminant validities, and model fit indices were calculated in the study. The EFA results derived 31 items in four factors, with 65.742% of the total variance explained: 'support and attentiveness' (11 items; 48.714% of the variance explained), 'professional knowledge and skills' (8 items; 8.226% of the variance explained), 'gratifying needs and responsiveness' (7 items; 5.236% of the variance explained), and 'confidentiality and trust' (5 items; 3.566% of the variance explained). The Cronbach's alphas for the four subscales and the overall scale ranged from 0.894 to 0.964. The CFA results yielded the same 31 items, with the same four factors. The CFA results demonstrated good to excellent model fit in the χ2/df ratio (1.242), GFI (0.988), CFI (0.988), TFI (0.985), and RMSEA (0.031). The Cronbach's alphas ranged between 0.866 and 0.971; the composite alphas ranged between 0.854 and 0.964. The convergent and discriminant validities also proved the stability of the CBS-HSP scale. The research results indicated that the developed CBS-HSP appeared to be a reliable instrument to measure healthcare students' and providers' caring behaviors.
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.