ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the BENEFITS-CCCSAT based on CTT and IRT: a cross-sectional design translation and validation study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Nurses' Perception of Talent Management Scale(NPTMS-C): a structural equation modeling analysis.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- The cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the stigma scale for caring for individuals with sexually transmitted infections (STISS)-student version: a translation and validation study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cross-cultural validation of the Chinese version of the lean management scale for nursing services in hospitals.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Reliability and validity testing the Chinese version of the nursing surveillance scale: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the sickness presenteeism scale- nurse (C-SPS-N): a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the breast cancer stigma assessment scale among Chinese patients.Frontiers in psychology · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The importance of culturally competent care in multicultural environments is increasingly recognized; however, effective tools to assess nursing students' cross-cultural competence remain limited. This study aimed to validate the BENEFITS-CCCSAT for Chinese nursing students. Methods: The original BENEFITS-CCCSAT was translated, back-translated, culturally adapted, and pre-tested using the Brislin model to form a Chinese version. A combined approach of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) was then used for multidimensional validation. Results: The CTT analysis showed that the C-BENEFITS-CCCSAT had a Cronbach's Conclusion: The 25-item C-BENEFITS-CCCSAT demonstrates good reliability and validity and can be applied in educational settings to assess students' ability to provide culturally competent care. Future studies should test the scale in culturally diverse populations to further determine its applicability and generalizability.
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.