ArticleBMC nursing2025
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the nurses' health-related procrastination scale (NHRPS) in Chinese nurses.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Influence of Achievement Motivation on Nurses' Health-Related Procrastination: The Mediating Role of Social Support.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the abbreviated technology anxiety scale among older patients with stroke: a translation and validation study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Psychometric testing of the theory of planned behavior-based self-employment intention scale and its application among Chinese undergraduate nursing students.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the Online Education Student Satisfaction Scale: a translation and validation study among Chinese nursing students.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the Perceived Emotional Expression Scale for adolescents.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe physical and mental health of nurses is closely related to the quality of nursing and patient safety. Nurses face greater health risks, which are closely related to health procrastination. At present, China lacks scientifically effective tools to assess the level of health-related procrastination among clinical nurses. The purpose of this study was to conduct cross-cultural debugging of the Nurses' Health-Related Procrastination Scale (NHRPS) and to test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the NHRPS among clinical nurses.
methodsThe NHRPS was translated strictly according to cross-cultural debugging guidelines. The content validity of the Chinese version of the Nurses' Health-related Procrastination Scale was evaluated by 10 experts. From January to February 2025, 395 clinical nurses were surveyed via the Chinese version of the NHRPS. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach's α coefficient and retest reliability were used to test the reliability and validity of the scale.
resultsThe Chinese version of the NHRPS contains 25 items in 4 dimensions. Four common factors were extracted via exploratory factor analysis, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 64.016%. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the chi-square/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF) was 1.515, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.049, the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.956, the incremental fit index (IFI) was 0.956, and the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) was 0.951. Convergent validity was The Cronbach's α coefficient of the scale was 0.930. The ranges of composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of convergence validity were 0.839-0.902 and 0.497-0.616. The fitting index of the second-order factor model is similar to that of the first-order one and has good structural validity. The first-order factor model is a more economical model, and it is more reasonable to select the first-order confirmatory factor model.
conclusionsThe reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the NHRPS are good, and it can be used as a scientific and effective tool to evaluate the current situation of health-related procrastination behaviours for clinical nurses.
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.