ArticleBMC nursing2025
Development and psychometric evaluation of the Nursing Teacher Emotional Labor Scale.
Article in BMC 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.
- The dual pathways of emotional labor in psychiatric nursing: the adaptive and maladaptive emotional strategies.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a fall health literacy scale for Chinese hospitals from the perspective of older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
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
Abstract
backgroundNursing teachers, as a group with high emotional labor, report heightened levels of negative emotions and burnout. Focusing on the emotional labor of nursing teachers is essential for improving their emotional well-being and job satisfaction. However, there is a lack of assessment tools specifically tailored to the emotional labor of nursing teachers. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a scale for assessing nursing teachers' emotional labor and to examine its psychometric properties.
methodsThe Nursing Teacher Emotional Labor Scale was developed in three phases. First, the scale's dimensions and items were formulated based on concept analysis, qualitative research and a review of existing literature, followed by expert evaluation and a pretest. The second phase involved item analysis and exploratory factor analysis to evaluate the items and explore the scale's factor structure. The third phase included testing for reliability and validity. Reliability was determined by internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Content validity, criterion-related validity, convergent and discriminant validity were employed to evaluate the validity.
resultsThe final version of the scale comprised 20 items across four dimensions. The I-CVI for all items ranged from 0.857 to 1.000, and the S-CVI was 0.993. Convergent and discriminant validity results indicated that the average variance extracted for each dimension exceeded 0.5, the composite reliability values surpassed 0.7, and the square root of the average variance extracted values was greater than their respective correlation coefficients. The principal component analysis identified four factors accounting for 70.962% of the total variance. The fit indices from the confirmatory factor analysis met the criteria. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.907 and a test-retest reliability of 0.865.
conclusionThe Nursing Teacher Emotional Labor Scale has satisfactory reliability and validity. It serves as an effective tool for nursing teachers to evaluate their emotional labor levels within the context of nursing education. Additionally, it offers a valuable metric for nursing education administrators to develop interventions aimed at enhancing the emotional well-being of teachers.
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.