ArticleJournal of Korean Academy of Nursing2022
[The Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of Readiness for Practice Survey for Nursing Students].
Article in Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 2022. 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.
- Readiness for Practice Among Nursing College Graduates: A Cross-Sectional Correlation Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
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
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the Readiness for Practice Survey (K-RPS).
methodThe English Readiness for Practice Survey was translated into Korean using the Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation (TRAPD) method. Secondary data analysis was performed using the dataset from the New Nurse e-Cohort study (Panel 2020) in South Korea. This study used a nationally representative sample of 812 senior nursing students. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were also conducted. Convergent validity within the items and discriminant validity between factors were assessed to evaluate construct validity. Construct validity for hypothesis testing was evaluated using convergent and discriminant validity. Ordinary α was used to assess reliability.
resultsThe K-RPS comprises 20 items examining four factors: clinical problem solving, learning experience, professional responsibilities, and professional preparation. Although the convergent validity of the items was successfully verified, discriminant validity between the factors was not. The K-RPS construct validity was verified using a bi-factor model (CMIN/DF 2.20, RMSEA .06, TLI .97, CFI .97, and PGFI .59). The K-RPS was significantly correlated with self-esteem (
conclusionThe K-RPS is both valid and reliable and can be used as a standardized Korean version of the Readiness for Practice measurement tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36620955What 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.