Claims

Of 100 assessment tools for mental health nursing competences, 66 are validated and 34 are researcher-developed

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? After eliminating duplicates, 100 tools were examined, with validated tools (n = 66) outnumbering non-validated or researcher-developed tools (n = 34). → Calvo Javier Sanz 2026

Evidence

Calvo Javier Sanz 2026

Calvo Javier Sanz, Renghea Mariana Alina, García-Madrid Mercedes Gómez del Pulgar. (2026). Assessment of Mental Health Nurses’ Competences: A Scoping Review. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría. https://doi.org/10.62641/aep.v54i3.2069

q2 · i? · review · r2

Tool inventory compiled by the scoping review from 23 included studies (encompassing 103 underlying studies). The review counts "a total of 100 tools" and reports the validated versus researcher-developed split; no effect size applies.

"After eliminating duplicates, a total of 100 tools were examined. Among these, validated assessment tools (n = 66) outnumbered non-validated or researcher-developed assessment tools (n = 34)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.