ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
Development and Psychometric Testing of a Comprehensive Cancer Nurse Self-Assessment Tool (CaN-SAT) for Identifying Cancer Nursing Skills.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluation of the Cancer Nurses Society of Australia mentorship program for cancer nurse practitioners: brief research report.Frontiers in medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo develop and psychometrically test a comprehensive Cancer Nurse Self-Assessment Tool (CaN-SAT).
designModified Delphi to assess content validity and cross-sectional survey to assess reliability and validity.
methodsPhase 1: An expert group developed the tool structure and item content. Phase 2: Through a modified Delphi, cancer nursing experts rated the importance of each element of practice and assessed the relevance and clarity of each item. Content Validation Indexes (CVI) were calculated, and a CVI of ≥ 0.78 was required for items to be included. Phase 3: Cancer nurses participated in a survey to test internal consistency (using Cronbach's alpha coefficients) and known-group validity (through Mann-Whitney U tests). This study was reported using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) checklist.
resultsThe CaN-SAT underwent two rounds of Delphi with 24 then 15 cancer nursing experts. All elements of practice were rated as important. Only three items achieved a CVI < 0.78 after round one; however, based on open-ended comments, 26 items were revised and one new item added. After round two, all items received a CVI above 0.78. The final tool consisted of 93 items across 15 elements of practice. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were between 0.92 and 0.98 indicating good reliability. Mann-Whitney U tests demonstrated significant differences between clinical nurses and advanced practice nurses across 13 out of 15 elements of practice.
conclusionThe CaN-SAT is a comprehensive, valid and reliable tool that can be used for cancer nurses to self-assess current skill levels, identify their learning needs and inform decisions about educational opportunities to optimise cancer care provision. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team included three patient advocates from Cancer Voices NSW, who were actively involved in all aspects of the study and are listed as authors.
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.