ArticleJournal of nursing management2026
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Nursing Management Capacity Scale for Poststroke Dysphagia Based on the Donabedian Model.
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. 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
Abstract
backgroundPoststroke dysphagia is common and adversely affects patient outcomes, yet no standardised tool exists to assess nursing management capacity in this area.
aimTo develop and validate the nursing management capacity in poststroke dysphagia (NMC-PSD) Scale, a self-report instrument measuring nurses' perception of unit-level management capacity.
methodsThe 35-item scale was adapted from an existing checklist and refined through two rounds of Delphi consultation (I-CVI = 0.80-1.00; S-CVI/Ave = 0.93) and pilot testing. A cross-sectional survey provided psychometric validation. The scale uses a mixed model: a formative structure dimension (resource inputs jointly constituting capacity) alongside reflective process and outcome dimensions. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α for the reflective dimensions and test-retest ICC for the total scale and the human resources composite.
resultsIn 410 nurses from 12 Chinese provinces, the 26-item reflective core showed adequate internal consistency (process α = 0.97; outcome α = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.98). Bifactor model fit was good: χ
conclusionsThe NMC-PSD Scale demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties as an individual-level measure of nurse-perceived unit capacity. A bifactor re-specification, developed post hoc within the same sample, revealed a dominant general factor underlying the 26 reflective items. Independent cross-validation is warranted. The 26-item reflective total score is recommended as the primary validated metric; nine formative structural indicators are reported separately as descriptive resource inputs. Subscale profiles serve as conceptual or descriptive item groupings only. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The 26-item reflective total score supports individual-level inference regarding nurses' perceptions of unit management capacity. Organisational-level benchmarking requires further validation of within-unit agreement and aggregation reliability. The nine structural indicators offer descriptive resource profiling, and the exploratory weighted index remains supplementary pending criterion-related validation against objective administrative indicators.
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.