ArticleBMC nursing2025
Measurement properties of self-assessment instruments for disaster nursing competencies: a systematic literature review.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ability of nurses to act competently in disasters is increasingly important, considering the rising disaster events. Self-assessment instruments are used for an evaluation of disaster nursing competencies, yet their scientific rigor has not been systematically evaluated. This review aims to identify self-assessment instruments for disaster nursing competencies based on the International Council of Nurses’ framework and to evaluate their psychometric properties to determine a validated gold standard measurement instrument.
methodsThis review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024590462). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved nurses, used a self-assessment instrument targeting disaster nursing competencies, and reported psychometric evaluations. Exclusion criteria were studies involving other professionals, lacking an all-hazards approach, psychometrics, or using external assessment instruments. A comprehensive search of seven databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and ERIC) was conducted up to August 2025 and complemented by reference list screening. Risk of bias assessment, evaluation of measurement properties, and evidence synthesis followed the COSMIN guidelines. A modified GRADE system was used to rate the certainty of the evidence.
resultsOf 758 screened records, eight studies evaluating eight instruments met the inclusion criteria. All instruments revealed conceptual and methodological limitations. Internal consistency was rated sufficient in all studies: quality of evidence “high”; structural validity and reliability were sufficient in seven studies: quality of evidence “very low” to “high”. Content validity: quality of evidence “very low” to “moderate”, construct validity: quality of evidence “high”, and cross-cultural validity: quality of evidence “very low” were sufficiently demonstrated in two, two, and one study, respectively. Criterion validity, measurement error, and responsiveness were not evaluated in any study.
conclusionsAs no instrument met all the requirements for measurement properties, it was not possible to give an unreserved recommendation. Future work should refine existing tools or develop a new, theory-driven instrument aligned with COSMIN, consistently incorporating the ICN framework and ensuring feasibility, transparency, and accessibility.
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.