ArticleBMC nursing2025
Adaptation and validation of Chinese version of the creativity and innovation effectiveness profile.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Spiritual Needs Questionnaire (SpNQ-20) Among Older Adults with Chronic Diseases in China.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Innovation capability characteristics among nursing undergraduates: a latent profile analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- The validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Digital Amnesia Scale.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to adapt and validate the Creativity and Innovation Effectiveness Profile (CIEP) for Chinese nursing students, developing a culturally contextualized tool to systematically assess and enhance creativity in alignment with China's educational and cultural contexts.
backgroundGiven the rapid evolution of global healthcare driven by advances in technology, clinical practice, and patient care models, fostering innovation in nursing education has become imperative. While China has demonstrated a growing emphasis on cultivating nursing students' innovative capabilities, there remains a persistent lack of validated instruments specifically designed to evaluate these competencies within this population.
designA scale adaptation and validation study.
methodsThe cross-cultural adaptation process involved forward-backward translation, expert reviews (using the Delphi method with 15 experts), cognitive interviews (n = 30), and psychometric validation. Data from 531 nursing students from two universities were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe adapted scale was restructured into four dimensions-Creative Consciousness, Pattern Breaking Skills, Critical Thinking Ability, and Idea Nurturing Ability. Results demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.894), excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.846), and strong construct validity (CFI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.051). Composite reliability (0.862-0.911) and discriminant validity further confirmed the scale's psychometric rigor. Culturally sensitive modifications enhanced the scale's ecological validity.
conclusionThe validated 31-item CIEP provides a systematic tool for evaluating and fostering innovation competencies within Chinese nursing education, thereby supporting national priorities for multidisciplinary healthcare talent development. Future research should focus on longitudinal tracking of innovation capability development and establishing empirical correlations between scale-derived indicators and objective clinical innovation outcomes.
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.