Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 623

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Testing of an Instrument to Measure Moral Distress in Healthcare Professionals

Hamric, Ann Baile, Borchers, Christopher Todd, Epstein, Elizabeth Gingell·2012·AJOB Primary Research

Abstract

Background: Although moral distress is increasingly recognized as an important problem that threatens the integrity of health care providers and health care systems, few reliable and valid measures of moral distress are currently in use in research or clinical practice. This article describes the development and testing of a revised measure of moral distress, the Moral Distress Scale–Revised (MDS-R), designed for use in multiple health care settings and with multiple disciplines. Methods: After instrument development and content validity testing, a survey methodology was used to assess reliability and construct validity of the MDS-R. Registered nurses (n = 169) and physicians (n = 37) in eight intensive care units (ICUs) at an academic medical center in the southeastern United States participated; the survey was administered during a 2-week period in January 2011. Results: Adequate reliability and evidence of construct validity were demonstrated. Moral distress was significantly higher for nurses than physicians, although it was negatively correlated with ethical climate for both provider groups. MDS-R scores were significantly higher for those clinicians considering leaving their positions. The proportion of physicians and nurses who had left a previous position or who were considering leaving their current positions due to moral distress was high (16% and 31%, respectively). Conclusions: Initial testing of the MDS-R reveals promising evidence of instrument reliability and validity. The findings from this study lend further support to the important relationships between the moral distress of providers, the ethical climate of health care settings, and retention of health care professionals.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/21507716.2011.652337

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 623

Metadata

Authors
Hamric, A. B., Borchers, C. T., & Epstein, E. G.
Venue
AJOB Primary Research
Published
2012-04
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 2150-7716 (ISSN-L)
  • 2150-7724
OpenAlex
W1990819238
Cited by
623
References
40
FWCI
25.96
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 Testing of an Instrument to Measure Moral Distress in Healthcare Professionals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/21507716.2011.652337
The paper
Hamric, A. B., Borchers, C. T., & Epstein, E. G. (2012). Development and Testing of an Instrument to Measure Moral Distress in Healthcare Professionals. AJOB Primary Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.652337

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.