The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and evaluation of a moral distress scale
Abstract
AIM OF THE STUDY: This methodological research developed and evaluated the moral distress scale from 1994 to 1997. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Although nurses confront moral questions in their practice daily, few instruments are available to measure moral concepts. The methodological design used a convenience sample consisted of 214 nurses from several Unites States hospitals. The framework guiding the development of the moral distress scale (MDS) included Jameton's conceptualization of moral distress, House and Rizzo's role conflict theory, and Rokeach's value theory. Items for the MDS were developed from research on the moral problems that nurses confront in hospital practice. The MDS consists of 32 items in a 7-point Likert format; a higher score reflects a higher level of normal distress. RESULTS: Mean scores on each item ranged from 3.9 to 5.5, indicating moderately high levels of moral distress. The item with the highest mean score (M=5.47) was working where the number of staff is so low that care is inadequate. Factor analysis yielded three factors: individual responsibility, not in the patient's best interest, and deception. No demographic or professional variables were related to moral distress. Fifteen percent of the nurses had resigned a position in the past because of moral distress. CONCLUSION: The results support the reliability and validity of the MDS.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Determination and Quantification Of Content Validity
LYNN, M. R. (1986) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 · Cited by 6,775
Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(72)90030-x · Cited by 1,068
Moral Distress in Nursing Practice: Experience and Effect
Wilkinson, J. M. (1987) · Nursing Forum · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6198.1987.tb00794.x · Cited by 521
Cited by
Nurse Moral Distress: a proposed theory and research agenda
Corley, M. C. (2002) · Nursing Ethics · doi:10.1191/0969733002ne557oa · Cited by 735
Self-citationLiving with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system
Kälvemark, S., Höglund, A. T., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz, B. (2004) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00279-x · Cited by 624
Development and Testing of an Instrument to Measure Moral Distress in Healthcare Professionals
Hamric, A. B., Borchers, C. T., & Epstein, E. G. (2012) · AJOB Primary Research · doi:10.1080/21507716.2011.652337 · Cited by 623
Nurse Moral Distress and Ethical Work Environment
Corley, M. C., Minick, P., Elswick, R. K., & Jacobs, M. (2005) · Nursing Ethics · doi:10.1191/0969733005ne809oa · Cited by 593
Self-citationEpstein, E. G., Whitehead, P. B., Prompahakul, C., Thacker, L. R., & Hamric, A. B. (2019) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2019.1586008 · Cited by 580
Metadata
- Authors
- Corley, M. C., Elswick, R. K., Gorman, M., & Clor, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-01-26
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 250-256
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W1988112613
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and evaluation of a moral distress scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01658.x
- The paper
- Corley, M. C., Elswick, R. K., Gorman, M., & Clor, T. (2001). Development and evaluation of a moral distress scale. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01658.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.