ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Development and Validation of Narrative Competence Scale for Medical Students.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Narrative competence in medicine enabled physicians to listen to patients' illness experiences, construct their narratives, and enhance reflective practice, empathy, humanistic literacy, and person-centered care. However, systematic research and clear definitions for measurable indicators of narrative competence assessment were lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a narrative competence scale for medical students. Methods: A 57-item draft scale was developed, and categorized into four dimensions and eleven sub-dimensions after interdisciplinary literature review. Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted with eleven experts specializing in narrative medicine. Pilot testing involved 200 fifth- and sixth-year medical students in Taiwan (136 males, 64 females). Confirmatory factor analysis CFA) and Cronbach's α were used to evaluate the NCS-MS's reliability and validity. Results: The NCS-MS was refined through three rounds of the Delphi method, focusing on item revisions and sub-dimension definitions. The results of CFA indicated a good fit for the four-factor model (RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.045, GFI = 0.911, NFI = 0.926, IFI = 0.971, CFI = 0.970). The Cronbach's α coefficients for the four dimensions ranged from 0.797 to 0.942, with an overall α of 0.972, demonstrating excellent internal consistency reliability. Conclusions: The NCS-MS effectively evaluated the narrative competence of medical students. From the perspective of narrative medicine, the NCS-MS served as a research or teaching assessment tool for assessing medical students' narrative competence in narrative medicine research, instructional design, and implementation.
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.