ArticleBioMed research international2026
An Investigation of Differential Item Functioning in the Infection Control Contact Isolation Precaution Instrument Among Nurses and Physicians.
Article in BioMed research international, 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
Abstract
objectiveHealthcare workers must understand disease transmission and adhere to appropriate precautions to prevent infections. However, differences in how questionnaire items are interpreted may lead to misleading comparisons between groups of healthcare professionals. This study examines differential item functioning (DIF) in the contact isolation precautions questionnaire between nurses and physicians.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 676 nurses and 138 physicians completed the questionnaire in May 2019. DIF was assessed using Firth binary logistic regression.
resultsAmong the 814 participants, 83% were nurses and 17% were physicians. DIF analysis identified item 8 in the knowledge domain as significant. After its removal, mean scores between the two groups remained significantly different (p < 0.001). In the attitude domain, removing Items 6 and 8 eliminated significant score differences. However, in the practice domain, mean score differences persisted even after removing Items 2, 3, and 6 individually or together (p < 0.001). Nurses consistently scored higher in all domains.
conclusionNurses and physicians may interpret some items of the contact isolation precautions questionnaire differently, which may affect comparisons of knowledge, attitude, and practice scores. Therefore, measurement equivalence should be considered when comparing these groups. These findings are specific to the questionnaire and study population examined and should not be generalized to other infection prevention and control instruments or populations. Further multicenter studies are warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Differences in item functioning should be considered when comparing nurses and physicians using this questionnaire. Despite relatively high knowledge and attitude scores, practice scores remained low, particularly among physicians, highlighting the importance of considering measurement equivalence when interpreting these differences and planning educational strategies.
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.