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 OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Ali Soleimani, Saeed Pahlevan Sharif, Ameneh Yaghoobzadeh, Bianca Panarello

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing EthicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207