ArticleBMC nursing2024
Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the inventory of vicarious posttraumatic growth and research of its influencing factors: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the critical care practical competency scale for clinical nurses.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Article
- Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the adolescent and young adult psycho-oncology screening tool.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Critical factors shaping vicarious posttraumatic growth in nurses: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Patterns of vicarious trauma and vicarious posttraumatic growth among oncology nurses: a latent profile analysis.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to translate the Vicarious Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (VPTGI) into Chinese and to assess its reliability and validity in Nurses, Additionally, it explored the correlations between vicarious posttraumatic growth (VPTG), Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) and demographic variables.
methodsThe Brislin translation model was used to translate the VPTGI into Chinese. Validity analysis involved exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and assessments of convergent validity, discriminant validity, and content validity. Reliability analysis included split-half reliability, internal consistency reliability, and test-retest reliability. Item analysis employed the Critical Ratio Decision Value (CR) method, item-total correlation method, and reliability change method. Single-factor analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between demographic variables and VPTG, while correlation analysis explored the association between STS and VPTG.
resultsThe Chinese version VPTGI demonstrated robust content validity (I-CVI: 0.83-1, S-CVI: 0.97), supported by EFA (KMO: 0.933) and significant Bartlett's test (p < 0.001). Four factors explained 67.82% variance, CFA confirmed the model fit (χ2/df = 2.255, RMSEA = 0.079, IFI = 0.931, TLI = 0.914, CFI = 0.930, NFI = 0.882). The Chinese version VPTGI demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.951), with dimensions' Cronbach's α ranging from 0.806 to 0.912. Overall, nurses demonstrated a moderate to low level of VPTG and a severe level of STS. Furthermore, there was a significant negative correlation between STS and VPTG.
conclusionThe Chinese version of VPTGI demonstrated satisfactory reliability, validity, and factor structure, making it a reliable tool to assess VPTG in Chinese nurses. These findings underscore the importance of promoting VPTG and addressing STS among healthcare professionals. Further research in this area is warranted to better understand and support the psychological well-being of nurses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.