Step 5: evaluation
The evaluation phase of the study consisted of both formative and summative evaluations. During the formative evaluation, the intervention group was required to complete a 15-item test within the software at the end of each month. Out of the 39 students in the intervention group, only 4 students did not achieve the minimum passing score. However, these students were given an additional 7 days to review and study the program. The first researcher closely monitored the outcomes of the formative evaluation and sent alarm messages to remind participants to complete steps 4 and 5 in the program. For the summative evaluation, aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the application, data from both the intervention and control groups were collected one month after the intervention. Three scales were utilized for this purpose: the characteristics questionnaire, the scale of cultural capacity and humility, and the pre-and post-test scores. By comparing these scores, the impact of the intervention could be determined.Three tools were used to collect data in the study:
Demographic and professional information was used to gather information about gender, marital status, ethnicity, history of participating in cultural care training courses, and the level of care for people with cultural diversity in the clinical settings from the participants (Table 
Comparison of demographic and professional information between the two study groups
The Cultural Capacity Scale Arabic (CCS-A) gathered data for the cultural capacity of the students. This scale was developed by Perng and Watson (2012) [The original CCS-A underwent content validity assessment by five experts. The Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) was found to be 1, indicating unanimous agreement among the experts. The Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) was also 1, indicating high content validity. To assess the reliability of the tool, internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated for the entire scale and yielded a value of 0.96. Additionally, the calculated ICC rate was 0.88, indicating good reliability [In this study, permission was obtained to use the Persian version of the cultural capacity scale which underwent a process of cultural adaptation using the translation-back translation method. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using internal consistency on a sample of 30 participants. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated for each subscale, resulting in values of 0.86 for cultural knowledge, 0.87 for cultural sensitivity, 0.91 for cultural skills, and 0.94 for the entire scale.
The Foronda’s Cultural Humility Scale, developed by Foronda et al. (2021), consists of 19 questions divided into three subscales:The Context for Differences in Perspective (questions 1–7): This subscale assesses participants' awareness of various factors that can influence changes in perspective. These factors include the physical environment, historical background, political climate, power imbalance, and situational context.Self-attributes (questions 8–11): This subscale measures the degree of flexibility, openness, and awareness of cultural prejudices and humility within oneself.Outcomes of Cultural Humility (questions 12–19): This subscale explores the outcomes of practicing cultural humility such as mutual empowerment, respect, collaboration, partnership, exceptional care, and lifelong learning.The scoring method for the Foronda Cultural Humility Scale is based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never/rarely) to 5 (always). The total score ranges from 19 to 95, with higher scores indicating higher levels of cultural humility. Interpreting the scores, a range of 19 to 35 suggests that individuals rarely exhibit cultural humility. Scores between 36 and 75 indicate that individuals sometimes demonstrate cultural humility. A score of 76 to 85 suggests that individuals usually exhibit cultural humility, while a score of 86 to 95 indicates that individuals are habitually culturally humble [The content validity of the Foronda Cultural Humility Scale was assessed by 6 experts. The Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) exceeded 0.83, indicating a high level of agreement among the experts. The Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) was calculated to be 0.96, and the calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.85, indicating good internal consistency [In this study, permission was obtained to use the Persian version of the cultural capacity scale, which underwent a process of cultural adaptation using the translation-back translation method. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using internal consistency and Cronbach's alpha coefficient on a sample of 30 participants for both the subscales and the entire scale. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated for the subscales of context for difference in perspective (0.85), self-attributes (0.82), outcomes of cultural humility (0.86), and the entire scale (0.85).