ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Psychometric validation of the informed consent assessment scale using item response theory and factor analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development of a health literacy scale for nutrition and supplement use among pregnant and postpartum women.Journal of Korean biological nursing science · 2026Article
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
Objectives: Informed consent is a central ethical and legal practice in medicine, yet communication skills specific to this task are under-assessed in undergraduate medical education. This study aimed to develop and validate the informed consent assessment scale (ICAS), a tool designed to evaluate communication competencies essential for delivering informed consent. Methods: This psychometric validation study was conducted over three academic years (2021-2023) and included 456 fifth-year medical students who completed a 10-min OSCE station on obtaining consent for right colectomy. The ICAS was developed through expert consensus using a structured focus group and qualitative assessment of content validity. Response process evidence was collected by querying assessors about their decision-making during scoring. Internal structure was examined using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with tetrachoric correlations, as well as the item response theory (IRT; Rasch and 2-parameter logistic (2PL) models). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and IRT-derived conditional reliability. Concurrent validity was evaluated through correlations with faculty and standardized-patient communication scores. Results: Parallel analysis supported a one-factor solution. The scale demonstrated essential unidimensionality (UniCo = 0.903, ECV = 0.807, and MIREAL = 0.235) and good model fit (RMSEA = 0.032, CFI = 0.966, and WRMR = 0.039). Reliability was high (McDonald's Conclusion and practice implications: The ICAS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing communication skills specific to informed consent. Its application in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) provides actionable feedback for learners and supports curriculum efforts to strengthen ethically competent clinical communication.
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.