ArticleBMC nursing2025
Development and validation of the Nursing Process Evaluation Tool (NPET): a multidimensional instrument for assessing the quality of AI-generated nursing documentation.
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 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.
- Article
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
backgroundThe integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools into nursing practice has accelerated documentation processes but it has also raised concerns regarding the completeness, accuracy, and clinical safety of AI-generated care plans. Despite the growing use of tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and PopAI in clinical and academic settings, no validated instrument currently exists to assess the quality of such documentation across the nursing process.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate the Nursing Process Evaluation Tool (NPET), a multidimensional instrument designed to assess the quality of AI-generated nursing documentation within the ADPIE (Assessment, Diagnosis, Planning, Implementation, Evaluation) framework.
methodsA two-phase cross-sectional study was conducted. Phase I focused on item development and content validation via two rounds of expert review (n = 23). Phase II evaluated the NPET’s psychometric properties by assessing 64 AI-generated nursing care plans based on eight clinical scenarios using eight AI models. A total of 368 individual expert ratings were yielded. Reliability (Cronbach’s α, ICC), content and construct validity (I-CVI, S-CVI/Ave, exploratory factor analysis), and comparative model performance (repeated-measures ANOVA with Tukey post hoc tests) were analyzed.
resultsThe NPET demonstrated strong content validity (S-CVI/Ave = 0.88) and excellent internal consistency (α = 0.85–0.94 across domains). Inter-rater reliability was high (ICC_average = 0.85–0.94). Exploratory factor analysis supported the proposed structure: four domains were unidimensional, while the Assessment domain revealed two interpretable factors. Although the overall ANOVA did not reveal statistically significant differences among AI models (F (7, 360) = 1.57, p = 0.144, ω² = 0.01), descriptive trends and post hoc tests showed that paid models consistently outperformed free versions. PopAI Paid achieved the highest mean NPET score (M = 3.44 on a 4-point scale), followed by ChatGPT Paid (M = 3.37), while Microsoft Copilot scored the lowest (M = 2.99). The largest pairwise difference—between PopAI Paid and Copilot—yielded a moderate-to-large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.60).
conclusionThe NPET is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating the quality of AI-generated nursing care plans. While the overall ANOVA did not yield statistically significant differences across AI models, the consistently high performance across tools and meaningful differences observed in descriptive and post hoc comparisons support the tool’s utility in nursing education, clinical auditing, and AI benchmarking. Future research should explore its application in real-world documentation and monitor its adaptability to evolving AI technologies.
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.