ArticleBMC nursing2024
Designing and psychometric evaluation of safe nursing care instrument in intensive care units.
Article in BMC nursing, 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.
- Designing, psychometric, and application of measurement instrument for Self-Care Literacy in Prevention of Prostate Cancer (SCL-PCa): A mixed-method study protocol.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding intravenous medication errors prevention among ICU nurses and influencing factors: a multicenter, cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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
backgroundProviding safe care in a sensitive and high-risk unit such as the ICU is one of the most crucial tasks for nurses. One way to establish the criteria for safe care is by creating a instrument to assess it. Therefore, this study was conducted with the aim of designing and psychometrically evaluating an instrument for safe nursing care in the ICU.
methodsThe current study employed a sequential-exploratory mixed-method approach with two qualitative and quantitative phases. Based on the results of qualitative phase and the literature review, the primary instrument was designed. In the quantitative phase, the designed instrument underwent psychometric evaluation. Face, content and construct validity were assessed. Face validity was assessed by 20 nurses, and content validity was assessed by 26 experts. In the construct validity stage, the sample size for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) included 300 nurses, and for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) included 200 nurses who work full-time in the ICUs of hospitals affiliated with Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences in western Iran. EFA sampling was conducted in three hospitals, encompassing six ICUs, while CFA sampling was carried out in two hospitals, covering four ICUs. Sampling was done using the convenience method. The reliability of the instrument was also assessed. Finally, the interpretability, feasibility, weighting, and scoring of the instrument were evaluated.
resultsThe qualitative phase identified three themes, including professional behavior (with categories: Implementation of policies, organizing communication, professional ethics), holistic care (with categories: systematic care, comprehensive care of all systems), and safety-oriented organization (with categories: human resource management and safe environment). The primary instrument was designed with 107 items rated on a five-point Likert scale. In the quantitative phase, the psychometrics of the instrument were conducted. First, the face and content validity were assessed, and the average scale content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.94. Then, a preliminary test was conducted to assess the initial reliability (α = 0.92) and the correlation of each item with the total score. After completing these steps, the number of items in the instrument was reduced to 52. The results of the EFA explained 58% of the total variance, with 4 factors identified: professional behavior by following guidelines, comprehensive care, accurate documentation, and pressure ulcer care. At the CFA stage, the results of the calculation of indices and goodness of fit showed that the model had a good fit. The reliability of the relative stability by examining the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the whole instrument in 20 samples was 0.92 with a confidence interval of 0.97 - 0.81. To measure absolute stability and determine the responsiveness of the instrument, the standard error of measurement (SEM) was 4.39 and the minimum detectable change (MDC) was 12.13.
conclusionThe instrument for safe nursing care in the ICU has favorable psychometric properties.
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.