ArticleNursing & health sciences2026
Development and Exploratory Validation of the Assisting Mealtime Scale for Dementia Care: Nursing Staff Perspectives on Mealtime Support.
Article in Nursing & health sciences, 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
Mealtime assistance for people living with dementia presents care-related challenges, yet few validated instruments assess nursing staff perspectives. This study developed and conducted an exploratory validation of the Assisting Mealtime Scale. A multi-phase instrument development process included literature review, expert consultation, content validation, pilot testing, and forward-backward translation. The 19-item scale was administered to nursing staff in aged care settings in Australia and China (N = 240). Exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with Promax rotation examined factor structure. Sampling adequacy was assessed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test and Bartlett's test of sphericity. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Sampling adequacy was excellent (KMO = 0.891). A three-factor solution explained 55.25% of total variance. Factors represented Perceived Knowledge and Skill Gaps, Time and Task Pressure, and Attitudes Toward mealtime assistance and Autonomy. The overall scale demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.890). The scale demonstrates preliminary construct validity and reliability. Further confirmatory and cross-cultural validation is required.
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.