ArticlePloS one2026
Development and psychometric validation of caring leadership scale in nursing.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Person-Job Fit and Communication with Angry Patients Among Frontline Administrative Healthcare Staff: The Moderating Role of Job Tenure.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaring leadership plays a pivotal role in supporting nurses' well-being, fostering patient recovery, and advancing organizational performance. Despite its recognized importance, a validated instrument for measuring caring leadership has been lacking in the literature.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop a Caring Leadership Scale and evaluate its validity, reliability, and practical applicability.
methodsGuided by a conceptual framework of caring leadership, scale items were initially generated through qualitative interviews, open-ended questionnaires, and a comprehensive literature review. The Delphi technique was used to refine these items. A pilot survey informed further modifications before a large-scale survey was conducted with 2,125 frontline nurses from six tertiary hospitals across China. Item screening was carried out using classical test theory, including assessments of item discrimination, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha). Content validity, factor structure, internal reliability, and acceptability were investigated using content validity indices, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, correlation coefficients, and descriptive statistics.
resultsAn initial pool of 40 items across five dimensions was developed. Following two Delphi rounds and preliminary testing, 39 items were retained. Item analysis led to the elimination of 12 items that did not meet predetermined criteria. The final scale consisted of 27 items across five dimensions, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The content validity indices were strong, with item-level CVIs ranging from 0.90 to 1.00, a scale-level content validity index universal agreement (S-CVI/UA) of 0.89, and a scale-level content validity index average (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.99. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) supported a well-defined five-factor structure, with common factor variances ranging from 0.849 to 0.949. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good model fit (RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.964, NFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.959, IFI = 0.964). The average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.834 to 0.925, and composite reliability (CR) ranged from 0.965 to 0.989. The scale showed moderate correlations with job satisfaction (r = 0.463-0.484, p < 0.001). Internal consistency was high, with Cronbach's alpha values between 0.962 and 0.993, and split-half reliability coefficients ranging from 0.955 to 0.982.
conclusionThis study presents the first validated instrument for measuring caring leadership in nursing. The final 27-item scale demonstrates robust psychometric properties, including excellent validity, reliability, and user acceptability. It offers a scientifically sound and practical tool for assessing caring leadership among nurse leaders.
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.