ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Revision and Psychometric Testing of the Delirium Care Self-Efficacy Scale for ICU Nurses.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to culturally adapt the Traditional Chinese version of the Delirium Care Self-Efficacy Scale for ICU Nurses (DCSE-I), originally developed in Taiwan, for use in mainland China and to assess its reliability and validity. Methods: The revised scale underwent cross-cultural adaptation following expert consultations and a pilot survey. To evaluate its reliability and validity, a survey was conducted among 284 ICU nurses from eight tertiary hospitals in Chongqing. Results: The Chinese version of the DCSE-I demonstrated strong internal consistency, with an overall Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.934. The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) values ranged from 0.800 to 1.000, and the scale-level content validity index/average (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.923. The split-half reliability was 0.861, while the test-retest reliability reached 0.954. Exploratory factor analysis identified two factors with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 65.522%. These two dimensions were labeled "Confidence in Delirium Assessment" and "Confidence in Delirium Management". Conclusion: The Chinese version of the DCSE-I is appropriate for the cultural context of mainland China and exhibits strong reliability and validity.
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.