ArticleMedicine2025
Development, validity, and reliability testing of a research readiness self-evaluation scale with nurses: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Medicine, 2025. 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.
- Developing and psychometrics assessment of a checklist for safe intrahospital patient transfer.BMC health services research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nurse research readiness determines research outcomes. Understanding of nurse knowledge, attitude, and behaviors on research preparation can better prepare them for medical search. To develop a nurse research readiness self-evaluation scale and test its validity and reliability. This cross-sectional study was performed between January and October, 2023. Based on the knowledge-attitude-practice model, we first created a draft version of a nurse research readiness scale via a literature review and semi-structured interviews with registered nurses. After a Delphi expert consultation and pilot survey, a second version of the nurse research readiness scale was developed. We then tested the validity and reliability of the scale to develop its final version. A total of 20 experts and 400 nurses were invited to participate in the study, and valid responses were subsequently obtained from 16 experts and 390 nurses. The draft version of the scale had 3 dimensions and 35 items, which was finalized to 3 dimensions and 28 items after expert consultation and validity and reliability tests. The 3 dimensions were extracted using the principal component analysis method, which includes knowledge, belief, and behavior, and this could explain 70.672% of the total variation. The content validity test showed moderate satisfaction, with content validity indexes for each item and an overall scale of 0.833 to 1.000 and 0.878, respectively. The construct validity test was performed using exploratory factor analysis, which showed satisfactory concept measurement, with a loading value > 0.4 in all 28 final items. The criterion-related validity showed a correlation coefficient of 0.893 between the research readiness scale and a previously published research capability scale for nurses, suggesting the consistency of the present scale. The Cronbach α coefficient, Spearman-Brown coefficient, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability were 0.964, 0.886, 0.940, and 0.824, respectively, thus demonstrating satisfactory reliability of the scale. A nurse research readiness self-evaluation scale was created with satisfactory validity and reliability, which could help nurses to determine their preparations for medical search and identify areas for improvements, with the ultimate goal to improve nursing research and evidence-based nursing practice.
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.