ArticleBMC nursing2025
Validation of the Chinese version of the psychological safety in high-fidelity simulation scale: a culturally compatible methodological study.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is a lack of a specialized scale in China for assessing the psychological safety of nursing students engaged in High-fidelity Simulation (HFS). The aim of this study was to translate the Psychological Safety in High-Fidelity Simulation Scale (PSHFSS) into Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties.
methodsThe translation and cross-cultural adaptation strictly followed the TRAPD (Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation) protocol. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the Chinese version of the PSHFSS (CV-PSHFSS) with convenience sampling of nursing students. Psychometric evaluation of the CV-PSHFSS was based on Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory.
resultsA total of 522 participants was analyzed, with item-level content validity index (CVI) ranging from 0.8 to 1.0 and a scale-level CVI of 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a goodness-of-fit test of 2.5, root mean square error of approximation of 0.054, the goodness-of-fit index of 0.963, comparative fit index of 0.982, and incremental fit index of 0.982. Cronbach’s α coefficients for the dimensions of dealing with uncertainty, being exposed, being unsupported, interpersonal risk, and the overall scale were 0.820, 0.885, 0.888, 0.896, and 0.927, respectively. Meanwhile, the McDonald’s omega coefficients for the same dimensions—dealing with uncertainty, being exposed, being unsupported, interpersonal risk, and the overall scale—were 0.821, 0.882, 0.890, 0.897, and 0.925, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the CV-PSHFSS was 0.925, and that of the items ranged from 0.715 to 0.855. Infit mean-square (MNSQ) values ranged from 0.69 to 1.24, and outfit MnSQ values ranged from 0.69 to 1.37. Point-measure correlations were between 0.59 and 0.77. Item difficulty measures ranged from − 0.55 to 0.85 logit, while individual psychological safety ranged from − 5.15 to 4.95 logit. Differential items functioning contrast ranged from − 0.24 to 0.28 logits, with all p-values exceeding 0.05.
conclusionsThe CV-PSHFSS has satisfactory reliability and validity among Chinese nursing students. Nursing educators are encouraged to use this scale to assess students’ psychological safety in HFS, thereby improving learning outcomes and engagement.
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.