ArticleBMC nursing2025
Validity of the Chinese Mandarin version of the compassionate engagement and action scales for self and others for nursing students.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompassion is a key concept in positive psychology. The value of compassion in hospital settings is evident. Three flows were used to gauge compassion. Nursing students have received less attention than other healthcare professionals regarding the various compassion-related scales available. PURPOSE: This study aimed to adapt and validate a Mandarin Chinese edition of the Compassionate Engagement and Action Scales (CEAS) specifically for nursing students and to assess its psychometric characteristics.
methodsThe Hong Kong and original versions of the CEAS were combined to create the Chinese Mandarin version, which was then translated and culturally adjusted using a standard process. A non-probability sampling technique, specifically convenience sampling, was employed to recruit 428 nursing students to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument from February to June 2024. Convergent, structural, and content validity were evaluated. Test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used to assess reliability.
resultsThe Chinese Mandarin version of the CEAS comprises three distinct dimensions, demonstrating high internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha(McDonald's Omega) values of 0.925(0.922), 0.938(0.936), and 0.932(0.930) for self-compassion, compassion towards others, and received compassion, respectively. The retest reliability was 0.992, 0.810, and 0.845 for these dimensions. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a well-fitting model, revealing satisfactory indices for self-compassion (χ
conclusionThe reliability and validity indicators of the CEAS' Chinese Mandarin version meet the standards, making it a trustworthy tool for measuring nursing students' compassionate engagement and action.
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.