ArticleNursing open2026
Turkish Adaptation of the Nurses' Perceptions of Electronic Documentation Scale.
Article in Nursing 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study was conducted to test the reliability and validity of the Nurses' Perceptions of Electronic Documentation (NPED) scale on Turkish nurses.
designA methodological study.
methodsIn the analysis, the scale's reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, item-total score correlations, scale response bias and the test-retest method, in addition to descriptive statistics. Validity analyses were conducted through language validity, the content validity index, construct validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis [CFA] and Exploratory Factor Analysis [EFA]) and known-groups validity.
resultsFor the 11-item NPED, item-total score correlations ranged between 0.27 and 0.68 (p < 0.01). EFA was conducted due to poor goodness-of-fit indices observed in the initial CFA. The EFA identified three subfactors; however, items 2 and 10 were distributed in subdimensions different from the original scale. After removing items 2 and 10, the scale demonstrated acceptable results in EFA. While α = 0.795 in the NPED, Factor 1 (α = 0.855), Factor 2 (α = 0.741) and Factor 3 (α = 0.767) measured 73.48% of the total variance. In the known-groups validity analysis, the scale successfully identified differences based on nurses' self-reported proficiency in computer use and their prior exposure to Electronic Health Records (EHRs) training, both of which were established as criteria.
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.