ArticleBMC nursing2025
Translation and validation of the German version of the Nursing Brand Image Scale (NBIS-P-G).
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global nursing shortage significantly impacts healthcare systems, making nursing’s public image crucial for workforce sustainability. Public perceptions influence career choice, professional identity, and retention. Germany lacks a validated instrument to assess these perceptions. The Nursing Brand Image Scale (NBIS), rooted in brand theory, assesses perceptions via functional and symbolic associations. This study aimed to translate and validate the NBIS for the German public (NBIS-P-G).
methodsAn online quota sample representative of the German population (N = 950; aged 16–65) was surveyed. Translation followed established guidelines. Structural validity was assessed via exploratory (EFA; N = 420) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA; N = 530). Convergent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and concurrent validity (correlations with brand attitudes, occupational prestige, career recommendation, political solidarity) were examined.
resultsA four-factor solution emerged (Professional Competence and Expertise; Patient-Centered Care and Compassion; Leadership and Influence; Professional Identity Challenges), differing from the original seven-factor NBIS. CFA indicated acceptable fit for the four-factor structure (RMSEA = 0.045, SRMR = 0.054, CFI = 0.942). Internal consistency was strong (α, ω = 0.74–0.95). Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity were generally supported.
conclusionsThe NBIS-P-G demonstrates sound psychometric properties and provides a basis for monitoring public perceptions and evaluating branding initiatives. Further refinement and measurement invariance studies are recommended.
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.