ArticleBMC nursing2026
Development and validation of a competency assessment scale for nurses in reproductive medicine departments.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs essential members of the assisted reproductive team, nurses play a critical role in clinical care, and their competency directly influences the quality of nursing practice and service delivery. However, a standardized instrument for assessing nurse competency in assisted reproductive technology (ART) departments is currently unavailable in China. This study aimed to develop a competency evaluation scale for ART nurses and examine its reliability and validity.
methodsUsing the Iceberg Competency Model, an evaluation index framework for the competency of nurses with four first-level indexes and 55 s-level indexes was constructed using Delphi consultation in a previous study. Five experts assessed the content validity of the scale. In January 2025, 38 nurses in reproductive medicine departments from three hospitals in Beijing were selected for a preliminary survey. 283 nurses from 10 hospitals were recruited for formal investigation between January and March 2025. Exploratory factor analysis was used for validity testing. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability.
resultsA competency evaluation scale for ART nurses was formulated, consisting of four subscales, and 49 items. The content validity index value of the scale was 0.982. The content validity index values of all items ranged from 0.800 to 1.000. The internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability values were 0.985, 0.992, and 0.874, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the professional and related theoretical knowledge subscale explained 73.606% of the variance, the professional practical skills subscale explained 79.306% of the variance, the professional development ability subscale explained 85.511% of the variance, and the professionalism scale explained 86.678% of the variance.
conclusionsThe Chinese version of the ART Nurse Competency Evaluation Scale exhibited good reliability and validity in the study sample, supporting its use as a practical and scientifically sound tool for assessing competency among nurses working in ART settings in China. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.