ArticleBMC nursing2026
Development of an assessment tool for breast self-examination: rubric.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, and early diagnosis significantly improves prognosis. Therefore, the rationale for this study was to develop an objective measurement tool that would assess breast self-examination skills in a standardized, valid, and reliable manner.The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable rubric to assess the breast self-examination skills of women objectively.
methodsIn this methodological research study, the researchers established a system that scores breast self-examination as “inadequate”, “partially adequate” and “adequate” by setting criteria for each skill step. The study was conducted with 171 nursing students. Data analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). While validity was tested with the Davis technique, reliability was tested with Cronbach’s alpha and intra-class correlation coefficient. Furthermore, the time-dependent reliability of the tool was assessed through test-retest applications. The opinions of 10 experts were obtained for the determined criteria.
resultsThe content validity index of the breast self-examination rubric was calculated to be 0.97, and it was determined that its content validity was high. As a result of the internal consistency analysis, Cronbach’s α value was calculated to be 0.967. The intra-class correlation coefficient in inter-observer agreement was determined to be 0.936. No significant differences were found after test-retest applications (p > 0.05). The test-retest analyses for time-dependent invariance showed a significant improvement in students’ breast self-examination skills.
conclusionThe breast self-examination rubric is a valid and reliable assessment tool with 18 items that can be used to objectively assess the breast self-examination skills of women.
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.