ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Polish validation of soft skills questionnaire for nurses.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The professional competence of nurses is a pivotal factor in ensuring patient safety and significantly influences the quality of care delivered. In line with the guidelines of the International Council of Nurses and the World Health Organization, educational programs for nursing professionals must emphasize the development of both psychosocial and psychomotor competencies to maintain high training standards. Additionally, effective quality management in healthcare institutions necessitates continuous monitoring of nurses' competencies, encompassing not only practical skills but also interpersonal abilities. Aim: The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Soft Skills Questionnaire for Nurses into a Polish-language version and to evaluate its reliability and validity as an instrument for assessing nurses' soft skills. Material and methods: The validation study was conducted from April to June 2024 among a cohort of 496 actively practicing nurses in Poland. A two-stage validation process was employed. The first stage involved the linguistic and cultural adaptation of the original questionnaire into Polish, following formal authorization from the original authors. The second stage entailed a psychometric evaluation of the translated instrument. Participants completed the questionnaire twice, with a 1-month interval between administrations to assess test-retest reliability. The internal consistency of each subscale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Agreement between the two sets of responses was analyzed by calculating descriptive statistics for both time points, followed by assessment of the differences using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The strength and direction of association between the two administrations were examined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Additionally, test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), providing further evidence of the tool's stability over time. Results and conclusions: The questionnaire comprised three distinct subscales designed to evaluate key domains of soft skills: communication skills (NCS-Nursing Communication Skills), confidentiality (CON-Confidentiality), and management and emotional intelligence (MEI-Management and Emotional Intelligence). The internal consistency of the NCS subscale was relatively high, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.669, approaching the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70 for satisfactory reliability. The CON subscale demonstrated a slightly lower internal consistency (α = 0.601), while the MEI subscale yielded the lowest internal consistency (α = 0.544), suggesting potential variability in item coherence within this domain. Despite these moderate reliability indices, all additional statistical analyses supported the robustness of the questionnaire. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed no statistically significant differences between the test and retest administrations (
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.