ArticleBMC nursing2026
Development and validation of the critical care practical competency scale for clinical nurses.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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.
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Nursing Management Capacity Scale for Poststroke Dysphagia Based on the Donabedian Model.Journal of nursing management · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a Critical Care Practical Competency Scale (CCPCS) for clinical nurses, and to assess its reliability and validity.
methodsThe scale was developed through a literature review, semi-structured interviews, and Delphi expert consultation. A convenience sampling method was employed to survey in-service clinical nurses from three tertiary Class A general hospitals in Anhui Province, followed by an item analysis and assessment of the scale’s reliability and validity.
resultsThe CCPCS for nurses comprised 3 dimensions and 22 items. The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.97, the partial coefficient was 0.91, and the retest reliability coefficient was 0.85. The Scale-Level Content Validity Index/Average (S-CVI/AVE) was 0.98, Scale-Content Validity Index/Universal Agreement (S-CVI/UA) was 0.93, with the Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) ranging from 0.83 to 1.00. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three common factors, explaining a cumulative variance contribution rate of 73.21%.
conclusionThe CCPCS for nurses exhibited robust reliability and validity, laying a foundational basis for training and assessing critical care nursing skills.
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.