{"title":"Development and psychometric properties of the nursing ethical decision-making ability scale.","authors":"Xinyu Chen, Chenxi Wu, Wenting Ji, Dingxi Bai, Huan Chen, Chaoming Hou, Jing Gao","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01190-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nursing ethical decision-making ability is a core competency of nurses. However, no tool has been developed to measure the ethical decision-making ability of nurses in China. Therefore, we aimed to develop a nursing ethical decision-making ability scale (EDMAS) and assess its validity and reliability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature review, qualitative study, and the Delphi method were employed to identify the most common ethical dilemmas and original scale items. A cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the items. The reliability and validity of the scale were evaluated. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to investigate the factor structure based on data from group 1 (N = 404). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the construct validity based on the data from group 2 (N = 503). Convergent validity was evaluated using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was assessed by analyzing the maximum shared variance (MSV). We invited 15 experts to evaluate the content validity of the EDMAS. This study was conducted between December 2021 and January 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We defined 4 nursing ethical dilemmas and 71 original items. We deleted 4 items during the screening process. Additionally, 3 items were deleted from the EFA. The EFA revealed that the EDMAS with 64 items had a four-factor structure (ethical sensitivity, motivation, judgment, and action), accounting for 56.05% of the total variance. The CFA revealed that χ<sup>2</sup>/df = 1.291, RMSEA = 0.024, CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.974, NFI = 0.902, and IFI = 0.976. The CR values were between 0.945 and 0.964. The AVE values were between 0.583 and 0.588. The MSV values were between 0.533 and 0.572. The value of I-CVI varied from 0.867 to 1.000, and the S-CVI/Ave was 0.965. The Cronbach's of the scale was 0.982. The test-retest reliability of the EDMAS was 0.982.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EDMAS is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating nurses' ethical decision-making ability and enhancing its ability through ethics training programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"35"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01190-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Nursing ethical decision-making ability is a core competency of nurses. However, no tool has been developed to measure the ethical decision-making ability of nurses in China. Therefore, we aimed to develop a nursing ethical decision-making ability scale (EDMAS) and assess its validity and reliability.
Methods: A literature review, qualitative study, and the Delphi method were employed to identify the most common ethical dilemmas and original scale items. A cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the items. The reliability and validity of the scale were evaluated. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to investigate the factor structure based on data from group 1 (N = 404). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the construct validity based on the data from group 2 (N = 503). Convergent validity was evaluated using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was assessed by analyzing the maximum shared variance (MSV). We invited 15 experts to evaluate the content validity of the EDMAS. This study was conducted between December 2021 and January 2023.
Results: We defined 4 nursing ethical dilemmas and 71 original items. We deleted 4 items during the screening process. Additionally, 3 items were deleted from the EFA. The EFA revealed that the EDMAS with 64 items had a four-factor structure (ethical sensitivity, motivation, judgment, and action), accounting for 56.05% of the total variance. The CFA revealed that χ2/df = 1.291, RMSEA = 0.024, CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.974, NFI = 0.902, and IFI = 0.976. The CR values were between 0.945 and 0.964. The AVE values were between 0.583 and 0.588. The MSV values were between 0.533 and 0.572. The value of I-CVI varied from 0.867 to 1.000, and the S-CVI/Ave was 0.965. The Cronbach's of the scale was 0.982. The test-retest reliability of the EDMAS was 0.982.
Conclusion: EDMAS is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating nurses' ethical decision-making ability and enhancing its ability through ethics training programs.
期刊介绍：
BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
