ArticleJournal of research in nursing : JRN2026
German version of the index of professional nursing governance: translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric validation.
Article in Journal of research in nursing : JRN, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shared governance enhances nurses' participation in decision-making and professional autonomy. The Index of Professional Nursing Governance (IPNG) is a validated tool for measuring such perceptions, but no German version previously existed. Aims: This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the German version of the IPNG. Methods: A two-phase study was conducted. Phase 1 included forward-backward translation and cognitive debriefing interviews with 10 clinical nurses. In Phase 2, a cross-sectional online survey was administered to 1090 registered nurses at a Swiss university hospital. Structural validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha. Known-groups validity was tested based on demographic and organisational variables. Results: CFA supported the original six-factor structure with good fit indices (comparative fit index = 0.97, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.97). The root mean square error of approximation (0.09) and the standardised root mean square residual (0.09) exceeded the threshold but remained within the acceptable range for multifactorial models. Most items had factor loadings above 0.70. Internal consistency was strong (α > 0.80). Known-groups validity showed significant differences by age and commitment. Conclusions: The German IPNG is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing shared governance.
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.