Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40170138›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

First aid self-efficacy: a scale adaptation and psychometric properties.

Minna Sihvo, Ville Heilala, Tommi Kärkkäinen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Minna SihvoFaculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, PL 35, Jyväskylä, 40014, Finland.
Ville HeilalaFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, PL 35, Jyväskylä, 40014, Finland. ville.s.heilala@jyu.fi.
Tommi KärkkäinenFaculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, PL 35, Jyväskylä, 40014, Finland.

Funding

Research Council of Finland 353325
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-efficacy is a crucial predictor of effective performance in medical emergencies requiring first aid skills. Despite this, there is no standardized instrument for reliably measuring self-efficacy in first aid situations. The aim was to fill this gap by developing a novel first aid self-efficacy scale and validate it through a comprehensive assessment of its psychometric properties.

methodsA systematic assessment of the existing first aid self-efficacy scales was conducted. A psychometric analysis process involving 1152 participants was undertaken for the new scale. The analysis utilized factor analysis, non-parametric item response theory, and classical test theory, including validity assessment.

resultsThe developed first aid self-efficacy scale demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. The scale exhibited a robust internal structure, high reliability, and strong construct validity. It showed significant positive correlations with related constructs and effectively distinguished between different levels of first aid knowledge and training history.

conclusionThe first aid self-efficacy scale is a novel, reliable, and valid instrument for assessing self-efficacy in first aid contexts. It can be used to measure the impact of first aid training and interventions, thereby promoting more effective layperson responses in emergencies. The scale's robust psychometric properties make it a valuable tool for both research and practical applications in emergency preparedness and first aid training.

Indexed as

First AidSelf EfficacyAdolescentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultFirst aidHelping behaviorPsychometric propertiesScaleSelf-efficacy

Identifiers

PMID40170138
PMCPMC11963637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.