Nursing competence in Austria: Brightening the Black Box-A mixed methods study to estimate the content validity of the German version of the Nurse Professional Competence Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of nursing-related competences by suitable instruments has become more relevant. Internationally, applicable instruments have been developed. The German-language version of the Nurse Professional Competence (NPC) Scale seems to be appropriate to measure competences of registered nurses in Austria. The psychometric properties of the scale have not been tested so far. The aim of this study was to examine the content validity of the German version of the NPC Scale. A mixed methods design was applied. Qualitative data were summarized by interpretative-reductive technique; the content validity index (CVI) was used to analyze the quantitative data. Data interpretation was performed by merging the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis. As a result of the content analysis, five categories were determined to summarize the comments and critique. These categories referred to insufficient precision of terms and items, lacking profile-specific scale content to the theoretical construct of nursing-related competences, missing adequacy of the scale for the use in all nursing-related settings, and annotations for the revision of single items. Quantitative analysis showed 85 of 88 items as content valid by computing each single item. The dimension-specific CVI/Averages ranged between 0.90 and 0.97, the CVI/Average for the whole scale was 0.93. After merging the results of both qualitative and quantitative data analysis, the NPC Scale can actually not be evaluated as a content valid instrument for assessing nursing-related competences in an Austrian context. Substantial item-specific and dimension-specific deficiencies imply that competences cannot be thoroughly assessed. A substantial contentual revision of the current German version of the NPC Scale is recommended.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".