Abstract
Introduction
Clinical teaching self-efficacy is critical for nursing education. In Vietnam, despite the growing number of nurse educators, there is a lack of culturally adapted instruments to measure their teaching self-efficacy.
Objectives
This study aimed to translate the Self-Efficacy Towards Teaching Inventory for Nurse Educators (SETTI-NE) into Vietnamese and evaluate its psychometric properties.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted with 400 clinical nurse educators (CNEs) from 36 clinical practice hospitals across Vietnam. The Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE (V-SETTI-NE) was translated using a standard forward–backward translation process. Psychometric properties included exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and internal consistency reliability.
Results
EFA identified a 45-item, four-factor structure consistent with the original SETTI-NE, comprising: (1) Course preparation (nine items), (2) Instructor Delivery (13 items), (3) Evaluation and Examination (16 items), (4) Clinical Practice (seven items), with factor loadings from 0.500 to 0.802. CFA confirmed an acceptable fit (χ2/df = 2.745, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.649, CFI = 0.804, TLI = 0.791, RMSEA = 0.094). Convergent validity was supported by composite reliability (0.928–0.960) and average variance extracted (0.601–0.660). Discriminant validity was established with HTMT ratios below 0.90. The overall scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α=0.96), with subscale coefficients ranging from 0.83 to 0.93.
Conclusion
The 45-item V-SETTI-NE is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the teaching self-efficacy of CNEs in Vietnam. It can be used in research and practice to assess nurse educators’ self-efficacy, identify training needs, and evaluate the impact of educational interventions on improving nurse educators’ self-efficacy.
Introduction
Clinical practice is an indispensable component of the nursing curriculum, serving as the bridge between theoretical knowledge and real-world application (Arteaga et al., 2024; Carless-Kane & Nowell, 2023). Clinical nurse educators (CNEs) play a pivotal role in this process, guiding students to integrate theory into practice, develop clinical reasoning, and cultivate professionalism (Dagg et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022). The effectiveness of this guidance is heavily influenced by the educators’ own self-efficacy-their belief in their capability to facilitate student learning effectively. High self-efficacy in educators is linked to better teaching strategies, increased persistence, and ultimately, improved student achievement and motivation (Abusubhiah et al., 2023; Bourne et al., 2021).
In Vietnam, Nam Dinh University of Nursing is a leading institution in nursing education, with a large and expanding network of clinical practice sites. This expansion has increased the number of clinical nurses participating in teaching activities. However, there is currently no standardized, validated tool available in the Vietnamese context to assess the self-efficacy of CNEs in clinical settings. By psychometrically validating a specialized scale tailored for Vietnamese CNEs, the findings will benefit nursing educators in self-assessing their performance, help institutions systematically evaluate the confidence of their educators, identify areas for professional development, and implement targeted interventions to enhance teaching quality.
Review of Literature
“Self-efficacy,” as defined by Bandura (1977), refers to an individual's belief in their capability to succeed in specific tasks or situations (Bandura, 1977). In an educational context, teacher self-efficacy (TSE) refers to an educator's belief in their ability to influence student learning, performance, and development through their teaching practices. In nursing education, self-efficacy is critical as it influences the educator's confidence in their ability to teach effectively, manage student learning, and navigate the complexities of clinical teaching environments (Al-Daken et al., 2024; Wu & Ho, 2023). Bandura identifies four key sources that influence self-efficacy: mastery experiences (successes), vicarious experiences (observing others), verbal persuasion (encouragement from others), and physiological/emotional states (emotional and physical reactions) (Bandura, 1977). These sources play a vital role in shaping educators’ confidence across various domains, including course preparation, instructor delivery, evaluation, and clinical practice (Garner et al., 2018).
Given the importance of this construct, numerous instruments have been developed to measure educators’ self-efficacy. Early efforts included tools based on Rotter's social learning theory and the RAND corporation's foundational two-item questionnaire in the 1970s (Conaway, 2010). Subsequently, Gibson and Dembo's (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale introduced a two-factor structure (personal and general teaching efficacy) that advanced the field significantly (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Further developments led to Bandura's TSE scale (1990) and more comprehensive instruments like the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), the Teacher Efficacy Belief System (TEBS-Self) (Dellinger et al., 2008). While these generic instruments are highly reliable for traditional classroom settings, they primarily assess general pedagogical aspects—such as classroom discipline, parent involvement, and broad instructional strategies—and fail to capture the complex, specialized demands of bridging theory and practice in clinical nursing education.
Within nursing education specifically, the need for a tool tailored to the clinical teaching environment became apparent. Addressing this, Tollerud (1990) developed the Self-Efficacy Towards Teaching Inventory (SETTI), a comprehensive instrument measuring confidence across four key domains: course preparation, instructor delivery, evaluation and examination, and clinical practice (Tollerud, 1990). The SETTI underwent several revisions and validations by researchers like Prieto and Altmaier (1994) and Nugent et al. (1999), consistently demonstrating high internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of .94. Most recently, Garner et al. (2018) updated the instrument to create the SETTI-NE (Self-Efficacy Towards Teaching Inventory for Nurse Educators) (Garner et al., 2018), further refining its content for modern nursing education contexts and reaffirming its excellent psychometric properties—including content and construct validity—with an overall internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.98.
The SETTI-NE was specifically selected for this study because, unlike generic scales, it exclusively measures the core competencies required in clinical nursing instruction, demonstrating exceptional reliability and proven adaptability across international contexts. However, like any psychological instrument, its validity and reliability are culturally dependent (Yurt, 2025). A direct translation without rigorous psychometric validation is insufficient, as linguistic and cultural nuances can alter the meaning of items and the structure of the scale.
Therefore, this study aimed to translate SETTI-NE into Vietnamese and to evaluate its psychometric validity and reliability for use among Vietnamese CNEs. By translating and validating this instrument in the Vietnamese context, this study will help to identify areas for professional development and improve the overall quality of nursing education, particularly in clinical settings.
Methods
Study Design
A cross-sectional, instrument validation study was conducted.
Instrument
The original SETTI-NE (Garner et al., 2018) consisted of 54 items, divided into four main dimensions: (1) Course preparation: to measure educators’ self-efficacy in planning and developing instructional materials; (2) Instructor delivery: to measure educators’ self-efficacy in facilitating learning interactions, communication, and managing student behaviors; (3) Evaluation and examination: to measure the ability to design, implement, and utilize assessment tools effectively; (4) Clinical practice: to measure educators’ self-efficacy in guiding, supporting, and supervising students in real-world clinical settings. Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (not confident) to 4 (completely confident). The original SETTI-NE has established rigorous content and construct validity, alongside excellent internal consistency reliability (Chiona & Msiska, 2023; Garner et al., 2018; Nkurunziza et al., 2023).
Study Process
Translation Process
A rigorous translation process was employed following Brislin's process (Brislin, 1970). First, the 54-item English SETTI-NE was translated into Vietnamese by two independent bilingual nursing experts. Second, these two Vietnamese versions were synthesized into one preliminary version by the research team. Third, this version was back-translated into English by another bilingual translator who had not seen the original English version. Finally, a committee of experts (including the translators and researchers) reviewed both the original and back-translated English versions to resolve discrepancies, which were minor and primarily involved semantic adjustments and cultural adaptation of educational terminology to naturally align with the Vietnamese clinical teaching context. These issues were addressed through collaborative discussions, and modifications were made to ensure strict conceptual equivalence. The final Vietnamese version (V-SETTI-NE) was then validated in a pilot study with 30 clinical nurses educators, who assessed the item clarity, ease of evaluation, and whether any further modifications were needed.
Validity and Reliability Testing
Content Validity
To assess content validity, a group of five experts in nursing education was convened, comprising four CNEs and one Doctor of Nursing. These members possess at least 5 years of extensive experience in clinical teaching, curriculum development, and academic leadership. Each panelist was asked to evaluate the relevance and clarity of each item in the Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE. The items were rated using a 4-point Likert scale: very valid (4), valid (3), somewhat valid (2), and not valid (1). The group also assessed the readability of the tool while validating its content and provided feedback on problematic questions they felt needed revision or were difficult to understand.
Construct Validity
To assess construct validity, the study employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This approach allowed for the evaluation of the model's goodness of fit, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
Reliability
To assess the reliability of the Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE, internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.
Sample and Data Collection
The study population comprised clinical nurses functioning as adjunct clinical lecturers for Nam Dinh University of Nursing. Inclusion criteria required participants to be registered nurses working at clinical practice sites and have experience in clinical teaching. The study excluded nurses who were on extended leave (e.g., maternity leave, long-term vacation) during the data collection period.
The sample size was determined based on the recommendation of Hair et al. (2010), which suggests that a sample size of 100–200 participants is required for conducting factor analysis. Therefore, a total of 400 participants were recruited, with 200 allocated to the EFA and another 200 to the CFA.
Data were collected using convenience sampling across 36 clinical practice sites affiliated with Nam Dinh University of Nursing between March and June 2025. Following institutional approval, head nurses at each site acted as intermediaries to distribute the initial study information. Nurses who met the inclusion criteria and expressed interest in the study consented to share their contact information (phone number and email address) with the research team. A researcher then directly contacted these potential participants to fully explain the study purpose and invite them to participate. Upon agreement, the consent form and self-administered questionnaire were distributed via email. In total, 436 eligible clinical nurses were initially contacted. Of these, 435 agreed to participate and received the consent form and self-administered questionnaire via email (an acceptance rate of 99.8%). The researchers received responses from 413 participants (a response rate of 94.9%). After screening the returned surveys, 13 incomplete questionnaires were excluded due to missing data. The data collection process officially concluded when the target of exactly 400 fully completed and valid survey questionnaires was reached. The final sample comprised 400 CNEs with a mean age of 41.9 years (SD = 7.98), the majority of whom were female (65.0%). Most participants held either a bachelor's degree (46.0%) or a master's/specialist level I degree (39.5%). The average duration of clinical experience was 16.7 years (SD = 7.21), and the average duration of clinical teaching experience was 9.0 years (SD = 4.89).
Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nam Dinh University of Nursing (No. 611/GCN-HĐĐĐ). The research adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, along with relevant national and local research guidelines. To ensure data safety and participant confidentiality, all collected data were anonymized and stored on password-protected computers. Access to the raw data was strictly restricted to the core research team.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS 29 and AMOS 20.0. Content validity was calculated by the Content Validity Index (CVI) and expert inter-rater agreement was assessed using the modified Cohen's Kappa (>0.8). Construct validity was evaluated through both EFA and CFA. EFA was conducted using principal component analysis with varimax rotation, requiring KMO ≥ 0.60 and Bartlett's P < .05. For CFA, a good model fit was indicated by the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Convergent validity was assessed by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE ≥ 0.50) and composite reliability (CR ≥ 0.70) (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity was confirmed by a heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio < 0.90 (Henseler et al., 2015). Reliability was assessed for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha; item-total correlation > 0.3).
Results
Translation
The translation process resulted in a clear and culturally appropriate Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE. The pilot test confirmed that the participants demonstrated a good understanding of the Vietnamese questionnaire and found all items easy to evaluate. They expressed overall satisfaction with the instrument and did not recommend any additional modifications or content.
Content Validity
For the purpose of this study, which focused on clinical teaching in real clinical setting, all five experts evaluated the six items (items 44–49) related to simulation—for example, “integrate best practices into simulation-based experience,” and “modify simulation facilitation to student's level of experience and competence”—as not valid (score = 1). All remaining items were rated as very valid (score = 4), or valid (score = 3). As a result, the 48-item scale achieved an Item-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) and a Scale-Content Validity Index based on universal agreement (S-CVI/UA) of 1.0.
The analysis of inter-rater reliability revealed that Cohen's Kappa coefficients for all 48 items were statistically significant (p < .001) and ranged from 0.800 to 1.000, indicating strong to almost perfect agreement.
Construct Validity
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure verified sampling adequacy of 0.925, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.80, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant [χ2(351) = 4,507.21, p < .001], indicating sufficient inter-item correlations for factor analysis.
Following sequential item deletion based on low or cross-factor loadings, 45 items were retained. Items were removed if they loaded < .40 on all factors, or if they loaded > .40 on multiple factors with a difference less than .20 between the highest and second-highest loading. Three items were deleted during this process: “provide constructive feedback in a supportive manner regarding clinical practice performance,” “adjust clinical practice assignments to individual's level of performance and confidence,” and “conclude a student's clinical practice performance is failing.” The final analysis yielded a four-factor solution, explaining 65.0% of the total variance (Table 1).
Total Variance Explained.
Extraction: Principal component analysis. Rotation: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Loadings < .40 are suppressed and rotation converged in 50 iterations.
EFA was conducted using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation (Kaiser normalization), suppressing loadings below 0.40, and the rotation converged after 50 iterations. The results revealed a four-factor structure: (1) Course preparation comprising nine items related to planning, syllabus development, and selection of learning resources (loadings ranging from 0.592 to 0.753); (2) Instructor delivery consisting of 13 items describing communication, respect, and facilitation of learning interaction (loadings from 0.508 to 0.795); (3) Evaluation and examination including 16 items reflecting competence in designing, implementing, and utilizing assessment tools effectively (loadings from 0.500 to 0.736); and (4) Clinical practice composed of seven items focusing on guidance, support, and supervision of learners in clinical settings (loadings from 0.552 to 0.802) (Table 2).
Rotated Component Matrix.
Extraction: Principal component analysis. Rotation: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Loadings < .40 are suppressed and rotation converged in 50 iterations.
Bold values indicate significant primary factor loadings.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The four-factor, 45-item structure of the Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE was further validated through CFA (Figure 1). The CFA results indicated that the four latent factors were strongly interrelated, with standardized covariances ranging from 0.69 to 0.85. The initial measurement model did not fully meet the recommended goodness-of-fit criteria (χ2/df = 3.02, p < .001, GFI = 0.61, CFI = 0.77, TLI = 0.76, RMSEA = 0.10). After model modification based on high covariance modification indices, the model fit improved (χ2/df = 2.75, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.65, CFI = 0.80, TLI = 0.79, RMSEA = 0.09). The fit indices of the modified model are summarized in Table 3.
CFA for the Vietnamese version of SETTI-NE (n = 200).
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
The results demonstrated robust convergent validity, with all composite reliability (CR) values ranging from 0.928 to 0.960 and average variance extracted (AVE) values ranging from 0.601 to 0.660. Discriminant validity was confirmed as all HTMT ratios (0.743–0.876) remained well below the 0.90 threshold (Table 4).
Convergent and Discriminant Validity (CR, AVE, and HTMT).
Reliability
The Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE (V-SETTI-NE) demonstrated excellent internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha for the overall 45-item scale was 0.96. The alpha coefficients for the four subscales were: course preparation (0.89), instructor delivery (0.89), evaluation and examination (0.93), and clinical practice (0.83).
Discussion
A total of 400 CNEs participated in the study, with a mean age of 41.9 years (SD = 7.98), and the majority were female (65.0%). This demographic characteristic aligns with previous research on nursing educators, which often shows a higher proportion of female educators in the field. For example, a study by East et al. (2024) found that the majority of nursing faculty were female at 88.8%. The mean age in this study was similar to findings from a study that found most nurse educators were in their 50s (East et al., 2024). This could be attributed to the fact that nursing educators often gain significant clinical experience before transitioning into teaching roles, leading to a more mature and experienced workforce.
Most participants held either a bachelor's degree (46.0%) or a master's/specialist level I degree (39.5%). This is somewhat lower than the educational qualifications seen in nursing faculty in high-income countries. For instance, studies in Australia have reported higher proportions of doctoral degrees among nurse educators (39.2%) (East et al., 2024). This difference may be due to the gap in opportunities for advanced graduate-level training for CNEs in Vietnam, resulting in a relatively lower proportion of educators holding a master's degree compared to those in other countries.
The average clinical experience of participants was 16.7 years (SD = 7.21), and the average clinical teaching experience was 9.0 years (SD = 4.89). These figures indicate a high level of practical and teaching experience among the participants, which is consistent with findings from other studies on CNEs. For instance, a study has reported similar levels of clinical and teaching experience, noting that nurse educators had over 10 years of clinical teaching experience (Gcawu et al., 2021). This suggests that Vietnamese CNEs are well-prepared to integrate their practical knowledge into their teaching, which is crucial for bridging the theory-practice gap in nursing education.
*The translation process resulted in a clear and culturally appropriate Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE, with the pilot test confirming that participants demonstrated a good understanding of the questionnaire and found all items easy to evaluate. Content validity for the Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE was high, with an I-CVI and a S-CVI/UA of 1.0, indicating that the scale was deemed highly valid by experts in clinical teaching. The analysis of inter-rater reliability indicates a strong to almost perfect agreement among the expert panel, ensuring that the consensus was not due to chance (Cohen's Kappa coefficients for all retained items from 0.800 to 1.000).
EFA of the Vietnamese version of SETTI-NE resulted in a four-factor structure, explaining 65.0% of the total variance. This is consistent with previous studies using the SETTI-NE in other contexts, which also revealed a four-factor structure, including course preparation, instructor delivery, evaluation and examination, and clinical practice (Garner et al., 2018). However, the percentage of variance explained in this study (∼65.0%) is slightly lower than that reported by Garner et al. (2018) (∼70%), which could be attributed to differences in the sample size and cultural context. During the EFA, three items were removed from the scale due to low or cross-factor loadings, which is a standard procedure in factor analysis to enhance construct validity. These items focused on providing feedback in a supportive manner, adjusting clinical practice assignments, and concluding when a student's performance is failing. The deletion of these specific items may reflect the particular teaching context in Vietnam, where feedback practices and evaluation criteria could differ from those in other countries.
CFA showed that the final modified model provided an acceptable fit to the data, with a chi-square/df ratio of 2.745, which is well below the acceptable threshold of 3.0 (Hair et al., 2010). However, the CFI (0.804), TLI (0.791), and the GFI (0.649) fell below the ideal standard of > 0.9 (Hair et al., 2010). Contextually, this suboptimal fit may reflect the deeply intertwined nature of clinical teaching roles in Vietnam. For instance, tasks related to “Instructor Delivery” and “Clinical Practice” often overlap in real-world clinical settings, leading to shared variance and cross-loadings that the strict independent-cluster CFA model restrains. To further strengthen the evidence for construct validity, our study evaluated convergent and discriminant validities using modern psychometric standards. The results demonstrated that the four subscales of the V-SETTI-NE are both internally cohesive and sufficiently distinct from one another, with all composite reliability (CR) values ranging from 0.928 to 0.960 and average variance extracted (AVE) values ranging from 0.601 to 0.660, and all HTMT ratios (0.743–0.876) remained well below the 0.90 threshold. Despite these suboptimal incremental fit indices, the robust convergent and discriminant validities confirm that the V-SETTI-NE remains a highly reliable and valid psychometric tool.
The internal consistency of the Vietnamese version of the SETTI-NE (V-SETTI-NE) was excellent, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96 for the entire scale, and alpha coefficients for the four subscales ranging from 0.83 to 0.93. All coefficients exceeded the recommended 0.70 threshold. These findings are consistent with those reported by Garner et al. (2018), who found Cronbach's alpha values for the SETTI-NE subscales to be similarly high, indicating that the tool is reliable across different cultural contexts. The high internal consistency observed in this study is a positive indicator of the instrument's stability and reliability for measuring self-efficacy among Vietnamese CNEs.
Strengths and Limitations
This study has several notable strengths. First, the translation and cultural adaptation of the SETTI-NE followed Brislin's rigorous forward–backward protocol, ensuring high conceptual equivalence between the Vietnamese and original English versions. Second, the recruitment of a large and diverse sample of 400 CNEs from 36 clinical practice sites across Vietnam enhances the representativeness of the findings and provides sufficient statistical power for complex factor analysis.
However, several limitations should be acknowledged. The original 54-item questionnaire was modified, with nine items deleted during the EFA and CFA process due to low or cross-factor loadings or their focus on simulation-based teaching, which did not align with the current clinical context. Additionally, this model would benefit from evaluation using a larger sample size, as the current sample size may have contributed to the suboptimal incremental fit indices observed. Finally, this study lacked criterion-related validity evidence, as V-SETTI-NE scores were not compared against external benchmarks or objective student outcomes. Future research should address this by linking the tool's scores to measurable outcomes in clinical settings to strengthen its criterion-related validity.
Implications
The validated V-SETTI-NE provides a valuable tool for nursing education institutions in Vietnam. By accurately assessing the baseline teaching self-efficacy of CNEs, administrators can systematically pinpoint specific pedagogical domains where educators exhibit diminished confidence. This diagnostic capability enables educational institutions to longitudinally track educators’ progress and design professional development programs.
For individual CNEs, the tool serves as a structured self-reflective framework, enabling them to recognize their own pedagogical strengths, monitor their professional growth over time, and take proactive steps to seek guidance. Ultimately, utilizing this tool to systematically elevate the teaching efficacy of CNEs ensures that nursing students receive higher-quality clinical instruction. This directly translates to improved clinical reasoning, better student competence, and ultimately, enhanced patient care and safety.
Conclusion
The findings of this study provided good reliability and validity of the V-SETTI-NE among Vietnamese CNEs. Comprising 45 items across four dimensions: Course preparation, instructor delivery, evaluation and examination, and clinical practice, the study significantly enhances understanding of clinical teaching self-efficacy by validating its multidimensional nature within a non-Western educational context. By confirming the stable four-factor structure of the SETTI-NE in Vietnam, these findings provide robust empirical support for the cross-cultural applicability of Bandura's self-efficacy theory in domain-specific nursing education.
Furthermore, the study advances global measurement practices by highlighting the critical impact of cultural and infrastructural factors on psychometric properties. The exclusion of specific items during factor analysis—such as those related to simulation-based teaching—demonstrates that while the core construct of teaching self-efficacy is universal, its behavioral manifestations are context-dependent.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The research team expresses gratitude to Nam Dinh University of Nursing, and all participants for their support, as well as to the original authors of the SETTI-NE instrument for granting permission to use and translate their tool in this study.
Ethical Consideration
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at Nam Dinh University of Nursing (No. 611/GCN-HĐĐĐ). The research adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, along with relevant national and local research guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study.
Author's contributions statement
N.T.M.C: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing‒original draft, writing‒review and editing. T.T.H.H: Conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, resources, validation, visualization, writing‒original draft, writing‒review and editing. N.T.S: Conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, resources, validation, visualization, writing‒original draft, writing‒review and editing. N.C.A: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, software, validation, writing‒original draft, writing‒review and editing. H.H.M: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, software, validation, writing‒original draft, writing‒review and editing. N.T.H.H: Conceptualization, formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, resources, validation, visualization, writing‒original draft, writing‒review and editing.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in the publication of this study.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declaration of Use of AI in Academic Writing
Nothing to declare.