ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2025
Development and Pilot Psychometric Testing of the Cancer Nurse Self-Assessment Tools for Early and Metastatic Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. 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.
- Development and Psychometric Testing of a Comprehensive Cancer Nurse Self-Assessment Tool (CaN-SAT) for Identifying Cancer Nursing Skills.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Cancer Nurses Society of Australia mentorship program for cancer nurse practitioners: brief research report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo develop and psychometrically test two newly developed Cancer Nurse Self-Assessment Tools for early and metastatic breast cancer (CaN-SAT-eBC and CAN-SAT-mBC).
designInstrument development and psychometric testing of content validity, reliability and construct validity.
methodsA three-phase procedure was conducted. Phase 1: An expert working group was formed to design and develop each tool using Benner's Model of Clinical Competence. Phase 2: The Content Validation Index (CVI) was used to assess the relevance and clarity of each item on the tools with breast cancer nurse experts and nursing educators. A CVI ≥ 0.78 was required for an item to be included in each tool. Phase 3: The tools were tested for internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and construct validity using principal component analysis (PCA). The Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies were followed in reporting this study.
resultsEach tool underwent two rounds of content validation. Ten experts were involved in the content validation for the CaN-SAT-eBC and 12 experts involved for CaN-SAT-mBC. The final versions comprised 18 (CAN-SAT-eBC) and 22 elements (CaN-SAT-mBC). All items obtained a satisfactory CVI of 0.83-1.0. Data from 159 and 126 nurses were analysed to evaluate reliability for CaN-SAT-eBC and CaN-SAT-mBC, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all elements were between 0.83 and 0.98. The PCA supported that each element was unidimensional and composed of internally correlated items, with the exception of the 'Diagnostics' element of practice which has a two-component structure measuring basic and advanced diagnostic tasks.
conclusionsThe two CaN-SATs are comprehensive, valid and reliable. They can be used for self-assessment by nurses in relation to breast cancer care and for identifying learning needs for long-term professional development. The self-assessment tools can also be used to develop education initiatives for specialised breast cancer nurses. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.