ArticleBMC nursing2025
Measuring honesty in nursing: scale development and validation.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundHonesty is considered a desirable trait that can impact happiness and job performance. The clinical environment can present ethical challenges for nurses. A lack of honesty can lead to significant issues for both nurses and patients. Existing tools for measuring honesty have limitations and do not focus specifically on nurses. This study aimed to design and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure honesty among nurses.
methodsThis methodological study involved the design and validation of an honesty measurement tool for nurses. The study employed an inductive-deductive approach to generate items. The face (10 nurses), content (10 nursing experts), and construct validity (320 hospital nurses) of the scale were assessed, along with reliability using internal consistency and stability methods. The Item Impact Method was used for quantitative face validity determination. Content validity was assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods, with the participation of researchers and nursing experts. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess internal consistency, and the test-retest method and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were used to assess reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to assess construct validity.
resultsThe study resulted in an 8-item tool with two dimensions: behavioral honesty and verbal honesty. The tool explained 51.034% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha for the entire scale was 0.823, and McDonald's omega was 0.898. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was reported as 0.918, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.827 to 0.961.
conclusionThe developed tool is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring honesty among nurses. This study contributes to the field by providing a tool to measure honesty in nurses. The tool's scoring system effectively distinguishes between different levels of honesty in nursing practice, with elevated scores reflecting greater adherence to honest professional conduct. This tool can be used by managers and organizational decision-makers to enhance the quality of management planning. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.