ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Translation, Adaptation, and Psychometric Validation of the Spanish Version of the Attitudes towards Research and Development within Nursing Questionnaire.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Testing of the Italian Barriers to Nursing Research Participation (I-BNPRQ).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Research Competencies of Registered Pediatric Nurses: Evidence from a Greek Pediatric Hospital.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The promotion of research competence is essential for the development of the nursing profession and discipline. The aim of this study was to translate into Spanish, adapt, and validate an instrument measuring nurses' attitudes towards nursing research and development. A quantitative, cross-sectional, analytical design was used for the cross-cultural adaptation and cultural validation of the instrument. A total of 367 participants were selected using intentional sampling. A process of translation, back-translation, expert consultation, and pilot testing was followed. Subsequently, reliability and statistical validity were assessed, a new factor structure was proposed, and means were compared to assess the power to discriminate between factors by groups of participants. The results showed internal consistency tests with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.913. Confirmatory factor analysis of the comparative fit index (CFI = 0.549) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI = 0.491) indicate that the factors did not match the original clustering model. The new factor structure consisted of seven factors. Between-group comparisons revealed statistically significant differences. In conclusion, the instrument exhibits high levels of statistical reliability and validity compared to the original instrument. The new factorial proposal is consistent, but further research is needed to verify its replicability in other contexts.
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.