Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation

Aim The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice). Methods This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of nursing practice 2024-12, Vol.30 (6), p.e13291-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes, Lima Trindade, Letícia, Rocha, Carla Gomes, Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral, Mendes, Mariana, Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia, Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina, Conceição Alves Faria, Ana, Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura, Sousa, Clemente Neves
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 6
container_start_page e13291
container_title International journal of nursing practice
container_volume 30
creator Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes
Lima Trindade, Letícia
Rocha, Carla Gomes
Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral
Mendes, Mariana
Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia
Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina
Conceição Alves Faria, Ana
Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura
Sousa, Clemente Neves
description Aim The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice). Methods This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity. Results The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model. Conclusion The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version. Summary statement What is already known about this topic? Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts. The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement. Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses. What this paper adds? The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome. The implications of this paper: This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community. It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement st
doi_str_mv 10.1111/ijn.13291
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084773667</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3084773667</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2781-495589db17349467daba5c7f8a4770c364e889fa70362bdd48b4e6eae0a67b5d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctKxTAQhoMo3he-gATc6KKaNGnSuhPxiqiggruSplNPDm2iSXvk7HwIn9AnMXpURHA2mQwfH5P8CG1Qsktj7Zmx3aUsLegcWqack4TK9H4-9ixNE0kpX0IrIYwJiQOaLaIlVpCM8lQso3CjVQu4cR73I8BgJ8Y724HtA4aJagfVG2exa_Cjdw2EEG-qxXbwwdiHOFS6NxreXl7DyPkeLNR4Av4D28fXYapHroPeG_3LtoYWGtUGWP86V9Hd8dHt4WlycXVydnhwkehU5jThRZblRV1RyXjBhaxVpTItm1xxKYlmgkOeF42ShIm0qmueVxwEKCBKyCqr2Srannnj6k8DhL7sTNDQtsqCG0LJSB5NTAgZ0a0_6NgNPr40UpTxTPBc0kjtzCjtXQgemvLRm075aUlJ-ZFEGZMoP5OI7OaXcag6qH_I76-PwN4MeDYtTP83lWfnlzPlOweelXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3134564871</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes ; Lima Trindade, Letícia ; Rocha, Carla Gomes ; Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral ; Mendes, Mariana ; Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia ; Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina ; Conceição Alves Faria, Ana ; Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura ; Sousa, Clemente Neves</creator><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes ; Lima Trindade, Letícia ; Rocha, Carla Gomes ; Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral ; Mendes, Mariana ; Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia ; Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina ; Conceição Alves Faria, Ana ; Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura ; Sousa, Clemente Neves</creatorcontrib><description>Aim The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice). Methods This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity. Results The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model. Conclusion The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version. Summary statement What is already known about this topic? Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts. The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement. Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses. What this paper adds? The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome. The implications of this paper: This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community. It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement strategies in nursing practice environments with the shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice, saving time associated with its completion, which will have a positive impact on participant adherence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1322-7114</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1440-172X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1440-172X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ijn.13291</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39051426</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Confirmatory factor analysis ; Cronbach's alpha ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Exploratory factor analysis ; Female ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Male ; Measurement ; Measures ; Middle Aged ; Nursing ; Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology ; Portugal ; Professional practice ; Psychometrics ; Quantitative psychology ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; validation study ; Validity ; working environment</subject><ispartof>International journal of nursing practice, 2024-12, Vol.30 (6), p.e13291-n/a</ispartof><rights>2024 John Wiley &amp; Sons Australia, Ltd.</rights><rights>2024 John Wiley &amp; Sons Australia, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2781-495589db17349467daba5c7f8a4770c364e889fa70362bdd48b4e6eae0a67b5d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9982-9537</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fijn.13291$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fijn.13291$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,30980,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39051426$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima Trindade, Letícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocha, Carla Gomes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendes, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sousa, Clemente Neves</creatorcontrib><title>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</title><title>International journal of nursing practice</title><addtitle>Int J Nurs Pract</addtitle><description>Aim The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice). Methods This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity. Results The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model. Conclusion The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version. Summary statement What is already known about this topic? Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts. The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement. Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses. What this paper adds? The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome. The implications of this paper: This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community. It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement strategies in nursing practice environments with the shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice, saving time associated with its completion, which will have a positive impact on participant adherence.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Confirmatory factor analysis</subject><subject>Cronbach's alpha</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Exploratory factor analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Measures</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology</subject><subject>Portugal</subject><subject>Professional practice</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>validation study</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>working environment</subject><issn>1322-7114</issn><issn>1440-172X</issn><issn>1440-172X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kctKxTAQhoMo3he-gATc6KKaNGnSuhPxiqiggruSplNPDm2iSXvk7HwIn9AnMXpURHA2mQwfH5P8CG1Qsktj7Zmx3aUsLegcWqack4TK9H4-9ixNE0kpX0IrIYwJiQOaLaIlVpCM8lQso3CjVQu4cR73I8BgJ8Y724HtA4aJagfVG2exa_Cjdw2EEG-qxXbwwdiHOFS6NxreXl7DyPkeLNR4Av4D28fXYapHroPeG_3LtoYWGtUGWP86V9Hd8dHt4WlycXVydnhwkehU5jThRZblRV1RyXjBhaxVpTItm1xxKYlmgkOeF42ShIm0qmueVxwEKCBKyCqr2Srannnj6k8DhL7sTNDQtsqCG0LJSB5NTAgZ0a0_6NgNPr40UpTxTPBc0kjtzCjtXQgemvLRm075aUlJ-ZFEGZMoP5OI7OaXcag6qH_I76-PwN4MeDYtTP83lWfnlzPlOweelXw</recordid><startdate>202412</startdate><enddate>202412</enddate><creator>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</creator><creator>Lima Trindade, Letícia</creator><creator>Rocha, Carla Gomes</creator><creator>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</creator><creator>Mendes, Mariana</creator><creator>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</creator><creator>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</creator><creator>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</creator><creator>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</creator><creator>Sousa, Clemente Neves</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9982-9537</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202412</creationdate><title>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</title><author>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes ; Lima Trindade, Letícia ; Rocha, Carla Gomes ; Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral ; Mendes, Mariana ; Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia ; Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina ; Conceição Alves Faria, Ana ; Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura ; Sousa, Clemente Neves</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2781-495589db17349467daba5c7f8a4770c364e889fa70362bdd48b4e6eae0a67b5d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Confirmatory factor analysis</topic><topic>Cronbach's alpha</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Exploratory factor analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Measures</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology</topic><topic>Portugal</topic><topic>Professional practice</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>validation study</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>working environment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima Trindade, Letícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocha, Carla Gomes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendes, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sousa, Clemente Neves</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of nursing practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</au><au>Lima Trindade, Letícia</au><au>Rocha, Carla Gomes</au><au>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</au><au>Mendes, Mariana</au><au>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</au><au>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</au><au>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</au><au>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</au><au>Sousa, Clemente Neves</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</atitle><jtitle>International journal of nursing practice</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Nurs Pract</addtitle><date>2024-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e13291</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e13291-n/a</pages><issn>1322-7114</issn><issn>1440-172X</issn><eissn>1440-172X</eissn><abstract>Aim The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice). Methods This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity. Results The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model. Conclusion The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version. Summary statement What is already known about this topic? Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts. The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement. Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses. What this paper adds? The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome. The implications of this paper: This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community. It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement strategies in nursing practice environments with the shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice, saving time associated with its completion, which will have a positive impact on participant adherence.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>39051426</pmid><doi>10.1111/ijn.13291</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9982-9537</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1322-7114
ispartof International journal of nursing practice, 2024-12, Vol.30 (6), p.e13291-n/a
issn 1322-7114
1440-172X
1440-172X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084773667
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
subjects Adult
Confirmatory factor analysis
Cronbach's alpha
Cross-Sectional Studies
Exploratory factor analysis
Female
Hospitals
Humans
Male
Measurement
Measures
Middle Aged
Nursing
Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology
Portugal
Professional practice
Psychometrics
Quantitative psychology
Reliability
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires - standards
validation study
Validity
working environment
title Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T13%3A10%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Scale%20for%20the%20environments%20evaluation%20of%20professional%20nursing%20practice%E2%80%94shortened%20version:%20Psychometric%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20nursing%20practice&rft.au=Ribeiro,%20Olga%20Maria%20Pimenta%20Lopes&rft.date=2024-12&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e13291&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e13291-n/a&rft.issn=1322-7114&rft.eissn=1440-172X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ijn.13291&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3084773667%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3134564871&rft_id=info:pmid/39051426&rfr_iscdi=true