ArticleBMC psychology2026
The development and psychometric evaluation of a nursing professional resilience scale in China.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProfessional resilience, rather than career resilience, is an important attribute for nurses’ retention in the profession. The concept of nursing professional resilience has just been clarified through a grounded theory study, but the evaluating scale was still lacking. PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a nursing professional resilience scale (NPRS).
methodThis study was conducted in accordance with DeVellis’s guidelines for scale development. The initial items were adopted from qualitative interviews and previous psychological/career resilience scales. The revised scale was tested via a sample of 479 nurses and refined through expert review and factor analysis. Content validity was evaluated by five experts; construct validity was explored through exploratory factor analysis and confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis. Convergent and discriminant validity were investigated, and reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s α coefficient, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability.
resultsThe final scale comprised 19 items distributed across five dimensions: positive personality traits (4 items), professional adaptability (3 items), interpersonal quotient (6 items), perceived support (3 items), and impervious to public opinion (3 items). Content validity was determined to be 0.98. The goodness-of-fit indices (χ2/df = 291.2/141, RMSEA = 0.071, NFI = 0.893, TLI = 0.929, CFI = 0.941, RFI = 0.870, IFI = 0.942) indicated a reasonable fit for the model. AVE values of the factors were calculated at between 0.563 and 0.684, CR2 values between 0.796 and 0.885 and MSV values between 0.754 and 0.825. The Cronbach’s α coefficient, split-half reliability coefficient, and test-retest reliability coefficient were 0.938, 0.885, and 0.946 for the overall scale.
conclusionsThe Nursing Professional Resilience Scale exhibited good reliability and validity when applied to Chinese nurses. This study provides a valid measurement instrument for subsequent research related to nurses’ mental health, career development education, and resilience-related policy development in Chinese healthcare context. The external validity could be examined in future large-scale studies.
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.