ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Psychometric evaluation of the reliability and validity of the literacy of suicide scale among Chinese nurses.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to Sinicize the Literacy of Suicide Scale (LOSS) and to test the reliability and validity of the LOSS with Chinese nurses. Methods: After authorization was obtained from the original author, the LOSS was translated into Chinese and translated back into English in accordance with Brislin's translation principle. Eight experts were invited to evaluate the scale's content validity, and the Chinese version of the LOSS was obtained. Moreover, the LOSS was used to assess the suicide literacy of 1,000 nurses from Beijing, Hubei, Henan, and Sichuan Provinces in China, and the reliability and validity of the scale were tested. Results: The Chinese version of the LOSS contains 26 items covering four dimensions: signs of suicide, risk factors for suicide, the cause/nature of suicide, and the treatment/prevention of suicide. Cronbach's Conclusion: The Chinese version of the LOSS has good reliability and validity and is a suitable assessment tool for assessing nurses' suicide literacy in the Chinese cultural context.
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.