ArticleNursing open2026
Validation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian Version of the Nurse Intuition Patient Deterioration Scale: A Methodological Study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimEarly recognition and intervention in cases of clinical deterioration are essential to preventing significant harm to patients, with nurses playing a crucial role in this process. The Nurse Intuition Patient Deterioration Scale (NIPDS) was developed to assess various aspects of a patient's condition, enabling nurses to identify potential issues even when vital signs do not indicate an urgent concern. This study aims to validate the Persian version of the NIPDS (NIPDS-P) and assess its psychometric properties based on the assessments of 250 hospitalized patients whose clinical status was evaluated by clinical nurses in Iran.
designA two-phase validation process involved the NIPDS-P ratings completed by clinical nurses for 250 hospitalized patients from multiple departments, including general wards, intensive care units, and emergency departments. The nurses completed the NIPDS-P for each patient based on their intuitive clinical assessment.
methodsThe study assessed the scale's reliability, construct validity, and face validity through quantitative and qualitative methods following COSMIN guidelines.
resultsThe content validity was confirmed by experts, as indicated by a Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.92 and a Content Validity Ratio (CVR) exceeding 0.99. The NIPDS-P exhibited high internal consistency, with both Cronbach's Alpha and McDonald's Omega values exceeding 0.95. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using the common-factor method with maximum likelihood extraction, which supported a unidimensional structure (one factor, eigenvalue = 6.567, explaining 72.97% of the variance). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), employing the diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimator with polychoric correlations, confirmed this structure, yielding acceptable fit indices: CFI = 0.980, TLI = 0.975, RMSEA = 0.078 (90% CI [0.054, 0.102]), and SRMR = 0.041.
conclusionThe NIPDS-P is reliable and valid for evaluating nurse intuition regarding patient deterioration in Iran. While its strengths highlight its potential to enhance nursing practice, further research is needed to explore its applicability in broader clinical settings and diverse patient populations. The high alpha (0.96) may indicate some item redundancy, and the cut-off score of ≥ 5 should be considered provisional pending ROC analysis against objective clinical outcomes.
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.