ArticleTzu chi medical journal
Development and validation of a brief version of the traditional Chinese Stressors in Nursing Students scale among college nursing students in Taiwan.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of stressors on readiness for clinical practice in novice nursing students: a path analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The 43-item Stressors in Nursing Students (SINS) scale has been evaluated among nursing students in several countries, including China, Hong Kong, Japan, Pakistan, and Spain. However, the original four-factor structure has not been consistently replicated in all of these populations. The aim of this study was to develop a brief version of the traditional Chinese SINS (TC-SINS) scale and to validate it in Taiwanese nursing students. Materials and Methods: Data obtained from a cross-sectional survey study of 814 nursing students in a nursing college and a university in Taiwan were randomly divided into two parts. The first part was used to conduct an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblique rotation. After the removal of cross-loading items, the resulting scale was validated with the data from the second part using confirmatory factor analysis. Results: A three-factor solution (social, clinical, and education) with 23 items accounting for 54.5% of variance was obtained in the exploratory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis further reduced the number of items to 20. The goodness-of-fit indexes were good (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.075 and Comparative Fit Index = 0.90). Conclusions: The number of items in the TC-SINS could be reduced from 43 to 20, without sacrificing its psychometric properties. The brief version of TC-SINS might be able to reduce respondent burden.
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.