ArticleJMIR human factors2024
Evaluating the Construct Validity of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire using Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Japanese Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire (CAFQa) Among ICU Nurses and Physicians: A Multicentre Study.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Assessment of alarm fatigue among intensive care unit nurses: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Developing a Scalable Annotation Method for Large Datasets That Enhances Alarms With Actionability Data to Increase Informativeness: Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Construct Validity of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire using Confirmatory Factor Analysis.JMIR human factors · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire (CAFQa) is a 9-item questionnaire that aims to standardize how alarm fatigue in nurses and physicians is measured. We previously hypothesized that it has 2 correlated scales, one on the psychosomatic effects of alarm fatigue and the other on staff's coping strategies in working with alarms. Objective: We aimed to validate the hypothesized structure of the CAFQa and thus underpin the instrument's construct validity. Methods: We conducted 2 independent studies with nurses and physicians from intensive care units in Germany (study 1: n=265; study 2: n=1212). Responses to the questionnaire were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis with the unweighted least-squares algorithm based on polychoric covariances. Convergent validity was assessed by participants' estimation of their own alarm fatigue and exposure to false alarms as a percentage. Results: In both studies, the χ2 test reached statistical significance (study 1: χ226=44.9; P=.01; study 2: χ226=92.4; P<.001). Other fit indices suggested a good model fit (in both studies: root mean square error of approximation <0.05, standardized root mean squared residual <0.08, relative noncentrality index >0.95, Tucker-Lewis index >0.95, and comparative fit index >0.995). Participants' mean scores correlated moderately with self-reported alarm fatigue (study 1: r=0.45; study 2: r=0.53) and weakly with self-perceived exposure to false alarms (study 1: r=0.3; study 2: r=0.33). Conclusions: The questionnaire measures the construct of alarm fatigue as proposed in our previous study. Researchers and clinicians can rely on the CAFQa to measure the alarm fatigue of nurses and physicians.
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.