ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2022
Measurement of Midwifery Clinical Leadership Among Nursing Students: Exploratory Factor Analysis.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: The aim of this study was to report the development measurement of midwifery clinical leadership instruments among nursing students. Methods: Specifically, the five-component concepts defined by Katz and Standards Midwifery Practice were used to build items for midwifery clinical leadership instruments. This study also used Netemeyer's "Guidelines in Scale Development" to develop an instrument for midwifery clinical leadership among nursing students. The sample used for the research was 9 experts and 330 nursing students in the fourth year of being selected by multi-stage sampling. The instruments used in the study were an interview guide and a questionnaire. The data were analyzed by content analysis and factor analysis (exploratory factor analysis: EFA). Results: Three separate data collections were used for the development of these instruments. The outcome of the content validity assessment was a 60-items questionnaire, Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) 0.94. The results of EFA yielded an instrument with 58 items in four-component. The final value of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test was 0.956. Conclusion: The instruments present a good interpretation of the data and were consistent with the personality attributes. The questionnaire was designed to measure with strong loading of measurement.
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.