ArticleBMC nursing2025
Development and validation of the Medical Second Language Anxiety Scale for Nurses (MSLAS-N).
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLanguage proficiency is crucial in healthcare, and non-native English-speaking nurses may experience significant anxiety when communicating in English, which can potentially impact their performance and patient outcomes.
aimThis study aims to develop and validate a survey to measure second language anxiety among nurses who use English in medical settings.
methodMethodological (tool development) research design was utilized and tested on a sample of 455 non-native English-speaking nurses in the Philippines across various healthcare settings. The MSLAS-N is a 24-item Likert scale survey that targets five key constructs: communication anxiety with colleagues, confidence in medical terminology, patient interactions, fear of negative evaluation, and perceived language proficiency. The study employs reliability and validity testing, including construct reliability to assess internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to investigate the survey's structural validity, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the hypothesized second-order, five-factor model.
resultsTo ensure construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (Ordinary Least Squares with oblimin rotation) was conducted following verification of factorability (KMO = 0.92; Bartlett's test of sphericity, p < 0.001). Confirmatory factor analysis using Diagonally Weighted Least Squares estimation indicated good model fit, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.070, SRMR = 0.054. The results confirm strong internal consistency for each construct and the hypothesized second-order, five-factor structure. Average item loadings for EFA on each factor ranged from 0.432 to 0.801, with an overall mean of 0.595. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.94), strong construct reliability (CR = 0.95), and acceptable average variance extracted (AVE = 0.78). These outcomes support the development of a psychometrically sound instrument capable of reliably measuring second language anxiety in professional medical contexts for nurses.
conclusionThe findings are expected to provide valuable insights into language-related anxiety not just among Filipino nurses but for all healthcare professionals whose first language is not English. The scale is recommended for use in professional development, onboarding, and continuing education to identify and address communication challenges among nurses who are non-native English speakers. The MSLAS-N is a psychometrically robust tool for identifying and addressing second-language anxiety among nurses, with implications for workforce training and international mobility. 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.