Evaluates a new questionnaire assessing sexual health care knowledge in gynecologic oncology nurses, suggesting strong reliability and validity.
Background/Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop a questionnaire assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding sexual health care among gynecologic oncology nurses and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: The questionnaire was developed using the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) framework as its theoretical foundation, drawing on an extensive literature review and qualitative interviews. The development process was further refined through two rounds of Delphi expert consultation and pilot testing. Using convenience sampling, 517 nurses working in gynecologic oncology settings were recruited from nine hospitals across six provincial-level regions in China (Tianjin, Shanghai, Hebei, Xinjiang, Hunan, and Hainan) between November and December 2024. Participants were randomly split into two distinct subsamples, with one allocated to exploratory factor analysis and the other to confirmatory factor analysis. Results: The final version of the questionnaire included 40 items covering three dimensions. It yielded an overall Cronbach’s α of 0.980, a split-half reliability of 0.919, and a test–retest reliability of 0.982, with the mean content validity index being 0.956. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis yielded three common factors, with item loadings spanning 0.539 to 0.809, and the cumulative variance explained reached 70.467%. The confirmatory factor analysis yielded an adequate model fit, which confirmed the structural stability of the questionnaire. Conclusions: The questionnaire exhibited high reliability and validity, thus making it a rigorous and dependable instrument for evaluating the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of gynecologic oncology nurses in regard to sexual health care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: