ArticleBMC nursing2025
Chinese version of the nursing information literacy scale: translation, cultural adaptation, and validation.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention Knowledge and Attitudes Scale: A Short Research Report.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Exploring death literacy with allied health professionals: A cross-sectional survey in Australia.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Nursing Information Literacy, Evidence-Based Nursing Competency, and Clinical Innovative Behavior Among Newly Employed Master's-Prepared Nurses: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of nursing management · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rapid development of information technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, and 5G driving nursing excellence, there is a need for a validated tool to assess the information literacy of nurses. Information literacy refers to an individual's ability to access, evaluate, utilize, and create information.
objectiveTo translate, culturally adapt, and assess the reliability and validity of the Nursing Information Literacy Scale (NILS).
methodsWe followed the Brislin translation guidelines for scale translation, which include four standardized steps: forward translation, synthesis and back-translation, expert review, and pilot testing. A total of 493 clinical nurses from Changsha, China, were recruited. The full sample of 493 nurses was used for item analysis. Using simple random sampling, the participants were divided into Sample 1 (n = 246) and Sample 2 (n = 247) for exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, respectively, to assess structural validity. Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel, including the item-content validity index (I-CVI) and the scale-content validity index (S-CVI/Ave). Internal consistency reliability was examined using the entire sample of 493 nurses. For test-retest reliability, 30 nurses were randomly selected from the total sample and retested after a two-week interval, assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Convergent validity was assessed against the Information Literacy Questionnaire (ILQ).
resultsThe scale consisted of 7 dimensions with 27 items. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 7-factor structure, which collectively accounted for 71.979% of the total variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was 0.900, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ² = 3527.479, P < 0.001). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the model with good fit indices: χ²/df = 0.933; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.007; RMSEA = 0.000; SRMR = 0.033. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.927, and the range of Cronbach's alpha values for each dimension was 0.781-0.898; the retest reliability (ICC) was 0.852. The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.83 to 1.00, and the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.994. The convergent validity coefficient, calculated against the ILQ, was r = 0.772.
conclusionsThe Chinese version of the Nursing Information Literacy Scale demonstrates strong psychometric properties, including good reliability, content validity, construct validity, and convergent validity. Its clear structure, simple language, and appropriate length make it a valid and reliable tool for assessing the nursing information literacy of clinical nurses in China. It is recommended for use in both clinical practice and future research to identify training needs and evaluate the effectiveness of information literacy education programs. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.