ArticleBMC nursing2025
Psychometrics evaluation of the Chinese version of the revised Rushton Moral Resilience Scale in registered nurses.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRegistered nurses frequently face moral sufferings due to unavoidable ethical conflicts, which highlights the importance of moral resilience as a mitigating resource. A valid and reliable tool is essential to effectively measure moral resilience.
aimThe study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometrics of the revised Rushton Moral Resilience Scale (RMRS) for use with Chinese registered nurses. STUDY
designA methodological study employing a cross-sectional survey design. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT: A convenience sample of 432 Chinese registered nurses was recruited via an online survey platform from October to November 2023. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION: The study received approval from the Ethics Committees of Hunan Traditional Chinese Medical College (Approval number: YXLL202401004). CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
resultsThe revised RMRS was successfully translated and culturally adapted into the Chinese version. The scale-level content validity index (CVI) was 0.906, with item-level CVIs ranging from 0.833 to 1.000. Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) generated 12 items on a three-factor model for the revised Chinese version (Chi-RMRS-12). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported this structure, with factor loadings for each item ranging from 0.42 to 0.93. The scale demonstrated a Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.734, with dimensions ranging from 0.657 to 0.831, and a composite reliability (CR) coefficient of 0.902, with dimension-specific values from 0.628 to 0.811. Significant correlations were found among the Chi-RMRS-12, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10 (CD-RISC-10) and the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT). DISCUSSION: The Chi-RMRS-12 effectively measures moral resilience of Chinese registered nurses, demonstrating strong validity and reliability. This scale can be used in research and practice to assess moral resilience, aiding nursing managers in monitoring the well-being of Chinese registered nurses and developing interventions to enhance their professional resilience and ensure quality of care.
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.