ArticlePeerJ2026
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Nighttime Collaboration Difficulties between Nurses and Physicians for Nurses (NCDNP-N) scale.
Article in PeerJ, 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
Background: The cooperation between nurses and physicians at night is a vital influencing factor of patient treatment and patient safety. Effective communication and collaboration could respond effectively to changes in the patient's condition at night. There is currently a lack of scale to assess the difficulties in collaboration between nurses and physicians during the night shift. While the scale of Nighttime Collaboration Difficulties between Nurses and Physicians for Nurses (NCDNP-N) has been developed in Japan. However, currently China still lacks a scale for assessing the degree of difficulty in collaboration. Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of NCDNP-N scale among nurses in the context of Chinese clinical nursing. Methods: The translated scale's reliability was assessed by means of Cronbach's α coefficient, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were employed to assess structural validity. The data was analyzed using SPSS 22.0 and Amos 24.0. Results: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among 483 clinical nurses in China. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the Chinese version of NCDNP-N scale was 0.922, the Cronbach's α coefficients of the three dimensions were 0.899, 0.960 and 0.954, respectively. The split-half reliability was 0.874, and the test-retest reliability was 0.886. The cumulative variance contribution rate of the three common factors extracted by exploratory factor analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1 is 86.284%. The results of the CFA showed that the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) was 1.484, the incremental fit index (IFI) was 0.993 the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.993, and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was 0.963, supporting the efficacy of the scale in assessing the difficulties of cooperation between nurses and physicians of nighttime. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the NCDNP-N scale demonstrated favourable reliability and validity among nurses, making it a suitable tool for measuring the level of nighttime collaboration difficulties between nurses and physicians for nurses.
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.