ArticleHealth science reports2026
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Psychological First Aid Competence (PFAC) Scale for Emergency Responders: A Cross-Sectional, Sequential-Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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 and Aims: There is no psychometrically sound tool tailored to assess emergency responders' competence in delivering Psychological First Aid (PFA). This study aimed to develop and evaluate the Psychological First Aid Competence (PFAC) scale for emergency responders. Methods: We used a sequential-exploratory mixed-methods design with a cross-sectional quantitative phase conducted in Iran (2024). A literature-derived coding matrix (WHO/IASC/RAPID-PFA) guided qualitative content analysis of 24 semi-structured interviews with emergency responders from prehospital services, hospital emergency departments, forensic centers, and disaster response units. Content validity was assessed by 15 experts using item impact score (IIS), content validity ratio (CVR), and item-level content validity index (I-CVI). The quantitative phase surveyed 238 responders across diverse emergency settings. Factorability was supported (KMO = 0.799; Bartlett's χ²(351) = 1566.08, Results: The initial pool (93 items) was refined to 88 and, after item reduction, to a final 27-item scale across three factors: ethical and belief-based responses (10 items), psychological responses (10 items), and psychological reactions of victims (7 items), explaining 36.94% of variance. Content validity met a priori threshold (all CVR ≥ critical value; I-CVI ≥ 0.78). Reliability was good for the total scale (α = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.84-0.86) and acceptable for subscales (α = 0.83; 0.78; 0.81). Nine items were interview-derived, and 18 were literature-derived. Conclusion: The PFAC demonstrates acceptable validity and reliability for assessing PFA competence in emergency responders. Further studies should examine test-retest reliability and confirmatory factor analysis in diverse settings.
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.