ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Assessing ethical competence and ethical climate: development and psychometric testing of the Clinical Ethics Support Measurement Instrument (CES-MI).
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical ethics support (CES) is increasingly recognised as essential in healthcare, yet its evaluation remains challenging due to the complexity of CES practices and the latent, psychosocial nature of relevant outcomes. The European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instruments (Euro-MCD original and 2.0) represents important steps in operationalising CES outcomes. However, there remains a need for a further theoretically grounded and psychometrically robust instrument. This study aimed to revise the Euro-MCD 2.0 and to develop and psychometrically test a new measurement instrument for CES.
methodsA sequential mixed-methods instrument redevelopment and validation design was used, guided by an abductive, theory-driven approach. Content validity processes involved conceptual framing, item revision, item development, and cognitive evaluation. Construct validity processes involved psychometric testing using survey data, incorporating principal component analysis and complementary item-level assessments.
resultsThe revision of Euro-MCD 2.0 resulted in the Clinical Ethics Support Measurement Instrument (CES-MI), assessing ethical competence and ethical climate. Ethical competence comprises holding moral judgement, being responsive, and acting with moral courage (9 items, using a 5-point scale assessing perceived difficulty). Ethical climate comprises permissive dialogue, supportive relationships, and managing ethical concerns together (7 items, using a 4-point scale assessing perceived extent). Measurement properties were generally strong: targeting was appropriate, response categories functioned as intended, and only minor issues, such as limited local dependencies were observed. Reliability indices were high, unidimensionality was supported across the constructs, and no differential item functioning was detected by sex or intervention groups.
conclusionsThe CES-MI is a coherent, theoretically grounded, and psychometrically robust instrument for measurement, suitable for both clinical practice and research. The strong validity likely reflects the extensive qualitative and psychometric work underpinning the CES-MI, together with a user-friendly response format that supports reflective and authentic self-assessment. Next steps include examining the instrument's sensitivity to change over time for example by exploring whether open-ended follow-up questions could deepen understanding of concrete changes, as well as, assessing applicability across diverse healthcare settings.
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.