ArticleBMC nursing2025
Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Turkish version of the Nurse Occupational Stigma Scale (NOSS-TR).
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
backgroundWhile the stigmatizing tendencies of nurses towards patients have been the subject of frequent research, there is a notable lack of research evaluating the stigmatizing attitudes of patients towards nurses. This study aimed to adapt the Nurse Occupational Stigma Scale (NOSS), which was developed to assess occupational stigma towards the nursing profession, for use in Turkish culture and to examine its validity and reliability.
methodsThe study followed the COSMIN guidelines for scale adaptation and psychometric evaluation. Data were collected via social media using the snowball sampling method, yielding responses from 692 adults in Turkey. Of the sample, 55.4% were female, 45.4% were married, and 53.4% had higher education; the mean age was 31.9 ± 11.1 years (range: 18–70). The adaptation process included forward–backward translation, expert review, and calculation of the content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI). Construct validity and internal validity were assessed, and Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient, Guttman’s coefficient, and Spearman-Brown two-thirds test consistency were calculated to evaluate reliability.
resultsTen experts participated in the content validity assessment, and the critical CVR value for 10 experts (.62) was exceeded by all items. The overall CVI value was 0.925 (CVI > CVR). Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); as a result of the analysis, the structure of the scale, comprising three factors and 11 items, was confirmed. Model fit indices were found to be excellent (χ²/df = 2.923, RMSEA = 0.054, CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.97, AGFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.95). Standardized factor loadings ranged between 0.47 to 0.84. In the internal validity analysis, 27% lower-upper group comparisons yielded significant results (p < 0.001). In the reliability analysis, the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.80, and between 0.61 and 0.87 for the sub-dimensions. Additionally, Spearman-Brown and Omega reliability coefficients fell within the limits recommended in the literature.
conclusionsIn line with the findings, it was determined that the NOSS-TR is a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing occupational stigmatization towards the nursing profession in Turkish culture. 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.