ArticleJournal of caring sciences2024
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Motivation for Healing Scale in Patients with Cancer.
Article in Journal of caring sciences, 2024. 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.
- Adaptation and psychometric validation of the Turkish version of the motivation for healing scale in patients with cancer.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Patient motivation: A concept analysis.Belitung nursing journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study was conducted to develop and validate a Motivation for Healing Scale (MHS) in Cancer. Methods: in this methodological study, the MHS draft was developed based on the approach of Waltz and colleagues using existing scales and concept analysis. The psychometric features, including face validity (qualitative and quantitative), content validity (qualitative and quantitative), structural validity (exploratory and confirmatory factors), and construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity) were assessed. Finally, the reliability was evaluated using internal consistency, and stability. Results: Based on the results of the qualitative phase, an initial item pool was generated with 55 items, Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed on the data collected from 404 patients. 25 Items were excluded during the psychometric evaluation phases. Reliability assessment and internal consistency assessment revealed that Cronbach's alpha value of the 25-item MHS was 0.912. The results of intraclass correlation coefficient (0.93, 95% CI: 0.86- 0.96) showed the stability was strong. Conclution: The 25-item MHS is a valid and reliable scale for the assessment of motivation for healing in patients with cancer.
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.