ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025
Evidence of validity of the Brazilian version of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto assess evidence of content validity and response process of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale for Brazilian Portuguese.
methoda psychometric study of cross-cultural adaptation. The committee of judges was multidisciplinary and comprised of 14 participants, using the Content Validity Coefficient for linguistic equivalence and content. The response process was carried out in two rounds.
resultsin linguistic equivalence, the components and items of the instrument reached a Content Validity Coefficient above 0.57. In terms of content validity, items that did not reach the Content Validity Coefficient of 0.66 were rewritten or removed.
conclusionsthe instrument translated and adapted to the Brazilian version represents a reassembly of the original. In terms of content validity, item wording is technically weak, requiring new tests for validity.
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.