ArticleClinical nurse specialist CNS
Finnish Version of the Specialist Outcomes and Barriers Analysis Scale: Evaluation of Psychometric Properties.
Article in Clinical nurse specialist CNS. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the psychometric properties of the Finnish version of the Specialist Outcomes and Barriers Analysis Scale.
designThis was a cross-sectional survey study.
methodsCultural adaptation of the translation and content validity of the translated instrument were assessed by expert panelists (n = 5) using the content validity index. The construct validity was assessed with principal component analysis using the survey data of Finnish registered nurses (n = 60). Scale reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α values. All study phases were conducted in 2021.
resultsThe items (n = 59) of the scale were critically evaluated by the experts. The full-scale content validity was revealed as excellent (0.92). In terms of construct validity, the scale was analyzed separately for outcomes and barriers. The outcomes section revealed a 5-component structure with an overall Cronbach's α coefficient of .96, and the barriers section, a 2-component structure with an overall Cronbach's α coefficient of .82, indicating adequate reliability of the scale.
conclusionThe Finnish version of the scale showed excellent content and construct validity. The Cronbach's α values represented adequate reliability of the Specialist Outcomes and Barriers Analysis scale when measuring nurses' perceived practice outcomes and barriers in the Finnish context.
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.