ArticleInternational journal of medical education2025
Development and psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the capacity for wonder scale.
Article in International journal of medical education, 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.
- Adaptation of the Japanese Version of the 12-Item Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence Scale for Medical Trainees: Multicenter Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Differences in Capacity for Wonder and Tolerance for Ambiguity by High School of Origin.JMA journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop a Japanese version of the capacity for wonder Scale (J-CfWS) and to examine its psychometric properties. Methods: An anonymous online self-administered questionnaire was distributed to medical undergraduates in three universities in Japan. We assessed the structural (factor analysis and model fitness test (comparative fit index, root mean square error of approximation, and standardized root mean square residual)) and convergent validity and internal consistency reliability of the scale. Results: 384 participants were included in the analysis. We employed a split-half validation approach, with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on one half and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the other. EFA led to a 9-item scale with a three-factor structure. CFA supported this three-factor structure with good model fitness indices (comparative fit index = 0.986, root mean square error of approximation = 0.036, and standardized root mean square residual = 0.036). The Pearson correlation coefficient between J-CfWS total scores and the Epistemic Curiosity Scale total scores was significant, r(382) = .60, p< .001, indicating a positive correlation between the two variables. The internal consistency reliability was good, with an overall Cronbach' alpha of 0.82. Conclusions: The J-CfWS was developed. We confirmed its psychometric properties. It will be useful in assessing the impact of curricula aimed at cultivating CfW among medical trainees (e.g. arts and humanities courses). It can also be useful to researchers who wish to verify the association between CfW and other concepts.
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.