ArticleBMC nursing2025
Psychometric evaluation of the person-centred climate questionnaire - staff version.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValid and reliable instruments are needed to assess person-centredness that serve as quality care indicators. Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire - staff version is an interculturally used tool to evaluate person-centredness in clinical settings. This study aimed to examine the psychometrics of the tool in the Turkish language.
methodsThis was a methodological study involving a sample of 140 nurses. One of the researchers collected data using the Turkish version of the questionnaire-staff version in a private hospital in Istanbul. After performing the language validity steps, the researchers analysed the content validity ratios of the items and the questionnaire's content validity index, and they performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to validate the construct. The internal consistency of the subdimensions and the questionnaire was determined utilising a Cronbach's Alpha test.
resultsThe content validity ratios of the items ranged from 0.84 to 1, and the correlation coefficients ranged from 0.50 to 0.69. The three-factor structure accounted for 70.40% of the total variance. The items' standardised factor loads were between 0.501 and 1.140. The Cronbach's alpha consistency value was 0.90.
conclusionThe staff version of the questionnaire is an adequately valid and reliable instrument in the Turkish language.
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.