ArticleThe journal of climate change and health
Climate Change Perceptions Scale for Health and Related Professionals and Students (CCPS-HARPS) - development, reliability and validity.
Article in The journal of climate change and health. 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.
- Development and Validation of the ClimHealth-K: A Scale for Assessing Perceived Knowledge and Awareness of Climate Change-Related Health Effects.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- Strengthening climate-health literacy through sustainability education among dental students: a quasi-experimental evaluation.BMC medical education · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to develop and validate a psychometric tool-the Climate Change Perceptions Scale for Health and Related Professionals and Students (CCPS-HARPS)-to assess the perceptions of health professionals and students regarding climate change and its impacts on health, and to evaluate its reliability and validity. Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed-method approach was utilized for the development and validation of CCPS-HARPS. The process included an extensive literature review, expert consultations, and iterative feedback. The initial scale, comprising 37 items, was reduced to 30 items after qualitative analysis. Content validity was assessed using the Lawshe technique, and the final version included 29 items. The scale was pilot-tested among health students at İzmir Democracy University. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed to evaluate construct validity, and internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients. Results: The sample included 304 valid responses. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.937, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity confirmed the data's suitability for factor analysis. EFA revealed a three-factor structure (Awareness and Consciousness, Experiences and Effects, and Health and Climate Change) that explained 50.96 % of the total variance. CFA supported the three-factor model with excellent fit indices (RMSEA = 0.045, SRMR = 0.054, CFI = 0.995). Internal consistency was high, with Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega values exceeding 0.90 for the total scale. Conclusion: The CCPS-HARPS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing climate change perceptions among health professionals and students. It addresses the gap in tools tailored for healthcare-related fields and can inform educational strategies to enhance climate change preparedness. Further studies are recommended to explore its applicability across different cultural and educational settings.
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.