Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40905444›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health nursing2025

Re-Visiting the Content Validity of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26).

Niels Buus, Hosu Ryu, Roshani Prematunga, Wendy Ducat, Marcus Gardner, Henrik Gonge, Bridget Hamilton, Rebecca J Jarden, Priya Martin, Sarah Osiurak and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Niels BuusDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4980-4096
Hosu RyuSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0561-7347
Roshani PrematungaCentre for Mental Health Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5560-9695
Wendy DucatMental Health Learning, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9150-6132
Marcus GardnerBendigo Health, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-0803
Henrik GongeGonge Consultancy, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0138-7564
Bridget HamiltonCentre for Mental Health Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8711-7559
Rebecca J JardenDepartment of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4643-7147
Priya MartinOccupational Therapy, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2092-6551
Sarah OsiurakPhysiotherapy Department, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7468-1350
David A SnowdonSchool of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2041-3120

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical supervision is widely regarded as an important part of both pre-graduate and post-registration education and training of healthcare professionals. To ensure comprehensive implementation of effective supervision practices, it is crucial that supervisors, healthcare organisations and researchers have valid and reliable instruments to measure these practices. The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS) is the most widely used instrument for measuring supervision effectiveness in nursing and allied health. According to the developers of MCSS, it is based on Proctor's three functions of supervision as being normative, formative and restorative. The purpose of this paper was to report a test of the content validity of MCSS-26, which is the latest version. Methods included: 1. A qualitative text analysis of MCSS-26's syntax and wording. 2. A Content Validity Index with an expert panel rating the relevance of MCSS-26 items for measuring effectiveness of supervision and their clarity. 3. A linguistic reordering of items and a tabulation of panel classifications of MCSS-26 items according to Proctor's three functions. Findings revealed heterogeneity in MCSS-26's wording and an uneven flow with negative/general questions being frontloaded. The CVI identified 46% of items (n = 12/26) as relevant for directly or indirectly measuring effectiveness of clinical supervision. The expert panel was not able to consistently link items to Proctor's functions. The results have important implications for how to interpret MCSS-26 ratings of effectiveness of clinical supervision and can be used to consider psychometric studies examining the potential for an abbreviated version of MCSS-26 with a single focus on effectiveness.

Indexed as

Nursing, SupervisoryPsychiatric NursingClinical CompetenceHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultsorganisation and administrationpreceptorshipquestionnairequestionnaire designvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID40905444
PMCPMC12409765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.