ArticleBMJ open2026
Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of the Evidence-Based Practice Mentoring Scale in Chinese nurses.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMentoring has been identified as a promising strategy for implementing and sustaining evidence-based practice (EBP) in healthcare organisation. However, no appropriate tools were specifically developed or cross-culturally adapted into Chinese context to assess nurse's perceived EBP mentoring, impeding comprehensive evaluation of the effects of mentoring intervention studies. This study aimed to cross-cultural adapt the Evidence-Based Practice Mentoring (EBPM) scale into Mainland China and evaluate its psychometric properties, including validity and reliability.
designA comprehensive translation and adaptation process was adopted to achieve the Chinese version of the EBPM (C-EBPM) scale. It consists of four steps: (1) trilateral translation procedure, (2) cognitive interview, (3) psychometric testing and (4) cross-time confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
settingThis study was conducted in four 3A-level hospitals located in Shaanxi and Zhejiang provinces, China, during two different data collection periods.
participantsA total of 598 registered nurses participated in this study.
resultsAfter two rounds of the trilateral translation procedure, a 9-item version of the C-EBPM scale was generated. Ten registered nurses participated in cognitive interview understood the meaning of all items but the response options. All items had significant critical ratio values (t=15.866~20.584, p<0.001). The item-total correlations ranged from 0.865 to 0.940 (p<0.001). The item-level Content Validity Index and item-level Translation Validity Index were 1.000. Horn's parallel analysis suggested that one factor should be extracted, which accounted for 84.656% of the total variance. Factor loadings extracted from principal axis factoring ranged from 0.862 to 0.942. Cronbach's α, ordinal α, McDonald's ω and Guttman split-half coefficient all exceeded 0.900. The one-factor CFA model provided an acceptable fit:
conclusionsThe 9-item C-EBPM scale demonstrated robust reliability and validity and is suitable for assessing EBP mentoring among nurses.
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.