ArticleBMC nursing2026
Psychometric evaluation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Chinese version of the Perception and Understanding of Human Dignity in Nursing Scale: a methodological study.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
backgroundHuman dignity is a core value in nursing practice. However, there is currently a lack of validated measurement tools in China for assessing the perception and understanding of human dignity in nursing contexts. This study aimed to translate the Perception and Understanding of Human Dignity in Nursing Scale into Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties among undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students in China.
methodsThis methodological study employed a cross-sectional design. Using convenience sampling, 530 nursing students were recruited from three medical universities in China. The scale was adapted into Chinese following the Brislin back-translation method. Item analysis and content validity evaluation were conducted. The total sample was randomly split into two subsamples for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the scale’s latent structure. The scale’s internal consistency reliability, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability were also assessed.
resultsItem analysis resulted in the retention of 43 items. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave), as rated with high consensus by experts, was 1.00. EFA extracted three factors (Understanding dimension, Perception dimension, and Caring dimension), which cumulatively explained 72.455% of the total variance. CFA results indicated acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 2.566, RMSEA = 0.077, SRMR = 0.014, CFI = 0.933, NFI = 0.894), supporting acceptable construct validity. The scale demonstrated a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.958, a split-half reliability of 0.836, and a test-retest reliability of 0.966, indicating good reliability within the study sample.
conclusionThe Chinese version of the Perception and Understanding of Human Dignity in Nursing Scale demonstrated acceptable to good psychometric properties among nursing students in China. It can serve as a preliminary valid tool for assessing nursing students’ perception and understanding of human dignity, providing support for dignity-centered nursing education. Further validation in broader and more diverse clinical nursing populations is warranted in the future.
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.