ArticleBMC psychology2025
Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability study of the "erlangen team cohesion at work scale": team cohesion of paramedics from healthcare professionals.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Resuscitation of a patient with progressive AIDS-related opportunistic infections complicated by MODS through multidisciplinary collaboration: case report.AIDS research and therapy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe healthcare sector is a labor-intensive service domain that operates on the basis of multidisciplinary collaboration. Effective service delivery in this field is not solely dependent on individual expertise, but also closely linked to the cooperation and cohesion established among team members. Team cohesion plays a critical role in various aspects, including patient safety, quality of care, team performance, and the prevention of medical errors. Particularly in healthcare services, where human life is directly at stake, the importance of team cohesion becomes even more evident in ensuring effective and safe care delivery. In this context, the present study aimed to validate the Turkish version of the Erlangen Team Cohesion at Work Scale and to assess the level of team cohesion among paramedics.
methodsThis methodological study was conducted between June 15 and July 15, 2024, with 219 paramedics who are members of the Association of Paramedics and Prehospital Emergency Medicine. To validate the Turkish version of the Erlangen Team Cohesion at Work Scale, the following procedures were carried out: For content validity: cultural adaptation, linguistic and content validation, and a pilot study. For construct validity: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). For reliability: Cronbach's alpha, item-total correlations, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability analyses.
resultsThe Turkish version of the scale, consisting of 12 items under a single factor, demonstrated excellent psychometric properties: Cronbach's alpha = 0.93; KMO = 0.94; explained variance = 59.76%. The fit indices from CFA were: χ²/df = 2.5, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04, GFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.93, RFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, and CFI = 0.95. These findings confirmed that the Turkish version of the Erlangen Team Cohesion at Work Scale has high content and construct validity as well as strong reliability. Additionally, the paramedics who participated in the study were found to have a high level of team cohesion, with a mean score of 2.86 ± 0.63.
conclusionThe Turkish version of the Erlangen Team Cohesion at Work Scale demonstrated robust validity and reliability, supporting its applicability among healthcare professionals in Turkey. Furthermore, the high cohesion levels observed among paramedics highlight the presence of effective collaborative dynamics in prehospital emergency medical services.
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.