ArticleBMJ open2026
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Nurse Prescribing Self-Efficacy Scale.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to translate the Nurse Prescribing Self-Efficacy Scale (NP-SES) into Chinese and evaluate its reliability and validity.
designA systematic methodological framework was used.
settingThe study's setting was hospitals and nursing schools in Jiangsu province, China.
participantsA convenience sample of 309 practising nurses and nursing graduates was recruited. OUTCOME MEASURES: The reliability and validity of the scale were assessed. Item screening was based on critical ratio values and item-total correlation coefficients. Validity was evaluated through content validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's α coefficient and split-half reliability.
resultsEFA identified three common factors, accounting for 78.608% of the total variance. CFA indicated that model fit indices met acceptable thresholds, supporting the scale's structural validity. Cronbach's α and split-half reliability for subdimensions ranged from 0.907 to 0.957 and from 0.867 to 0.944, respectively.
conclusionsThe Chinese version of the NP-SES demonstrates good reliability and validity and is suitable for assessing clinical nurses' self-efficacy in prescribing.
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.