MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2432491541 · doi:10.1177/0969733016651129

Psychometric evaluation of the Moral Distress Scale–Revised among Iranian Nurses

2016· article· en· W2432491541 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)PsychologyDistressPsychometric testingPsychometricsClinical psychologyApplied psychologyNursingSocial psychologyMedicineCronbach's alphaGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Experiencing moral distress is traumatic for nurses. Ignoring moral distress can lead to job dissatisfaction, improper handling in the care of patients, or even leaving the job. Thus, it is crucial to use valid and reliable instruments to measure moral distress. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and the validity of the Persian version of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised among a sample of Iranian nurses. RESEARCH DESIGN: In this methodological study, 310 nurses were recruited from all hospitals affiliated with the Qazvin University of Medical Sciences from February 2014 to April 2015. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire and the Moral Distress Scale-Revised. The construct validity of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised was evaluated using principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was approved by the Regional Committee of Medical Research Ethics. The ethical principles of voluntary participation, anonymity, and confidentiality were considered. FINDINGS: = 1.899, goodness-of-fit index = .904, comparative fit index = .927, incremental fit index = .929, and root mean square error of approximation (90% confidence interval) = .049 (.040-.057)) with all factor loadings greater than .5 and statistically significant. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .853, .686, .685, and .711for the four factors. Moreover, the model structure was invariant across different income groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The Persian version of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised demonstrated suitable validity and reliability among nurses. The factor analysis also revealed that the Moral Distress Scale-Revised has a multidimensional structure. Regarding the proper psychometric characteristics, the validated scale can be used to further research about moral distress in this population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it