ArticleBMC nursing2026
Chinese version of the Nurses' AI Ethical Awareness Scale: translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric evaluation among hospital nurses.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into healthcare, nurses need to recognise and respond to its ethical implications. However, validated Chinese-language instruments for assessing nurses' ethical awareness of AI use remain limited. This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and psychometrically evaluate the Chinese version of the Nurses' AI Ethical Awareness Scale.
methodsA methodological study was conducted among 455 nurses from a tertiary hospital in Shenzhen, China, between December 2025 and January 2026. The original scale was translated and cross-culturally adapted using a Brislin-style procedure. Participants were randomly divided into an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)/model-refinement subsample (n = 227) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) subsample (n = 228). Item analysis, EFA, candidate-version comparison, CFA, reliability testing, and validity assessment were performed.
resultsThe data were suitable for factor analysis (KMO = 0.9509; Bartlett's test χ² = 4943.71, P < 0.001). The scale was reduced from 21 to 15 items, forming three closely related content domains. In the CFA subsample, the correlated three-factor and second-order models showed better relative fit than the one-factor and alternative two-factor models. The bifactor model showed the most favourable relative fit among the tested models, with favourable incremental fit indices (CFI = 0.9587, TLI = 0.9421), although RMSEA remained elevated (RMSEA = 0.0967). In the correlated three-factor CFA model, standardised factor loadings ranged from 0.7201 to 0.9455. In the full sample, internal consistency was high for the final 15-item scale (Cronbach's α = 0.9669). Discriminant validity was only partially supported, whereas bifactor indices suggested that the total score captured most of the common variance (ωh = 0.9459; ECV = 0.8596).
conclusionsThe adapted 15-item Chinese version showed high internal consistency and preliminary validity evidence among hospital nurses. Its three closely related content domains were largely explained by a dominant general factor, supporting total-score interpretation as the primary approach and cautious use of subscale scores. Because privacy, confidentiality, and data-governance items were not retained, the scale should be interpreted as assessing practice-facing aspects of AI ethical awareness. Further multicentre validation is needed.
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.