ArticleJournal of nursing management2026
Turkish Version of the Unfinished Nursing Care Survey: Validity and Reliability Data.
Article in Journal of nursing management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and experiences of missed nursing care among junior nurses: a qualitative study using reflexive thematic analysis.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Turkish Version of the Unfinished Nursing Care Survey: Validity and Reliability Data.Journal of nursing management · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring unfinished nursing care (UNC) with valid and reliable instruments is essential for identifying systemic issues and improving patient safety and outcomes. The Unfinished Nursing Care Survey (UNCS) was developed as a comprehensive, valid, and reliable tool. This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the UNCS (UNCS-TR).
methodsThis validation study established the linguistic equivalence of the UNCS-TR using the translation and back-translation method. Content validity was evaluated based on expert opinions. Construct validity, internal consistency, hypothesis testing, and criterion validity were examined among 422 nurses in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.
resultsThe overall content validity index of the UNCS-TR was 0.98. Mokken Scale Analysis for Part A demonstrated strong scalability (H = 0.616) and excellent internal consistency (Molenaar-Sijtsma statistic = 0.966; Cronbach's alpha = 0.964; Guttman's lambda 2 = 0.965). All 21 items reflecting elements of unfinished care loaded onto a unidimensional structure in Part A. For Part B, which measures reasons for UNC, confirmatory factor analysis supported an 18-item, six-factor structure with acceptable to good fit indices and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.950). Nurses with greater professional experience reported significantly lower perceptions of UNC. No significant differences were found between bedside nurses and nurse managers. Nurses over 30 years of age perceived significantly fewer instances of UNC compared to younger nurses, and intensive care nurses reported significantly fewer instances than those working in medical-surgical units.
conclusionThe Turkish version of the UNCS (UNCS-TR) is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring UNC.
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.