ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Construct validity and internal reliability of the healthcare provider performance scale.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessing healthcare provider performance factors (HCPP) is crucial for enhancing the quality of healthcare services and the overall effectiveness of the healthcare system. Existing measurement tools often focus on limited aspects of factors independently and fail to comprehensively capture the organizational and individual factors influencing performance across diverse healthcare settings. To address this gap, this study developed and validated a multidimensional tool to assess HCPP across diverse settings. Methods: The validation process involved a two-phase analysis, in which Phase 1 used Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to establish the initial factorial structure and Cronbach's alpha to assess preliminary internal consistency reliability, while Phase 2 employed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate the model's fit, composite reliability, and construct convergent and discriminant validity. Results: EFA identified six factors consisting of Feedback and Organizational Support (FOS), Environment and Tools (ET), Incentives and Consequences (IC), Health Status (HS), Work-Family Conflict (WFC), and Healthcare Provider Performance (HCP),.explaining 63.7% of the total variance. The reliability of the scale was high (Cronbach's Conclusion: The HCPP scale demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties, including acceptable reliability, factorial structure, and construct validity. The tool provides a robust measurement for assessing the factors associated with healthcare provider performance concerning individual and contextual-level determinants.
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.