ArticleCureus2025
The Cross-Cultured Validity and Reliability of the Vietnamese Nijmegen Questionnaire.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Knowledge and attitudes toward clinical laboratory medicine among undergraduate medical interns in China: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a questionnaire for laboratory medicine knowledge and attitudes in clinical medical interns.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Nijmegen Questionnaire assesses hyperventilation syndrome (HVS), but a validated Vietnamese version is lacking. This study investigates the cross-culture validity, structural validity, and reliability of the Vietnamese Nijmegen questionnaire (VNQ) for screening HVS in primary healthcare settings.
methodsFollowing Beaton's guidelines, translation and adaptation involved two independent expert panels for content validity. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) examined the VNQ's structure. Reliability was assessed via Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman analysis, and linear regression.
resultsContent validity was excellent (all I-CVIs > 0.79 and all S-CVIs > 0.8). EFA revealed a four-factor structure, including the original three NQ factors and a new "psychology" factor, confirmed by CFA. Cronbach's alpha and ICC values exceeded 0.7 and 0.8, respectively, indicating good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Bland-Altman analysis showed low systematic error, and linear regression revealed no proportional bias (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe VNQ demonstrates excellent content validity, acceptable structural validity, and reliable psychometric properties for HVS screening in primary healthcare settings.
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.