ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to translate the English version of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire (not the original German version) into Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties among ICU healthcare professionals in China. Methods: The Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire was translated into Chinese following Brislin's translation model and finalized after a pre-survey. A total of 674 questionnaires were distributed. The 634 valid responses were randomly split into two subsamples for exploratory factor analysis ( Results: The Chinese version consisted of 9 items and 2 dimensions, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 68.346%. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, and the scale-level content validity index/average was 0.954. The average variance extracted and composite reliability values for each dimension met the criteria, demonstrating good convergent and discriminant validity. The criterion-related validity was 0.567. Cronbach's Discussion: The Chinese version demonstrates good psychometric properties and can be considered a valid tool for assessing alarm fatigue levels in China.
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.