ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Development and psychometric properties of the nursing ethical decision-making ability scale.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical Sensitivity as Mediator Between Conflict and Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study of ICU Nurses.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Observational
- Concorde Syndrome in the Treatment of People with Cancer: Validation of a Measurement Instrument.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of "nursing ethics-professional teaching" integrated ward-round in practicing nursing students: a practical study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Cross-cultural validation of the Chinese version of the nurses' ethical decision-making around end-of-life care scale: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNursing ethical decision-making ability is a core competency of nurses. However, no tool has been developed to measure the ethical decision-making ability of nurses in China. Therefore, we aimed to develop a nursing ethical decision-making ability scale (EDMAS) and assess its validity and reliability.
methodsA literature review, qualitative study, and the Delphi method were employed to identify the most common ethical dilemmas and original scale items. A cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the items. The reliability and validity of the scale were evaluated. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to investigate the factor structure based on data from group 1 (N = 404). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the construct validity based on the data from group 2 (N = 503). Convergent validity was evaluated using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was assessed by analyzing the maximum shared variance (MSV). We invited 15 experts to evaluate the content validity of the EDMAS. This study was conducted between December 2021 and January 2023.
resultsWe defined 4 nursing ethical dilemmas and 71 original items. We deleted 4 items during the screening process. Additionally, 3 items were deleted from the EFA. The EFA revealed that the EDMAS with 64 items had a four-factor structure (ethical sensitivity, motivation, judgment, and action), accounting for 56.05% of the total variance. The CFA revealed that χ
conclusionEDMAS is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating nurses' ethical decision-making ability and enhancing its ability through ethics training programs.
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.