The nursing process in clinical practice can be assessed using standardized language systems. The purpose is to find evidence on the effectiveness of the nursing process with standardized terminology using NANDA International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification improving diag-nostic accuracy, nursing interventions, health outcomes, and people’s satisfaction. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and PreMedline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI and Scielo and LILACS including randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental, cohort and case-control studies. Selection and critical appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Methodology. 17 studies were included with variability in the level and certainty of evidence. According to outcomes, 6 evaluated improvements in diagnostic accuracy and 11 evaluated improvements in individual health outcomes. No studies evaluated improvements in intervention efficacy or population satisfaction. There is a need to increase studies with rigorous methodologies that address diagnostic accuracy and indi-viduals’ health outcomes using NANDA International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification; as well as implementing studies that evaluate the use of these terminologies for improvements in the efficacy of nurses' interventions and population satisfaction with the nursing process.

(1) Background: The CEECCA questionnaire assesses the ability to communicate among individuals with aphasia. It was designed using the NANDA-I and NOC standardised nursing languages (SNLs), reaching high content validity index and representativeness index values. The questionnaire was pilot-tested, demonstrating its feasibility for use by nurses in any healthcare setting. This study aims to identify the psychometric properties of this instrument. (2) Methods: 47 individuals with aphasia recruited from primary and specialist care facilities. The instrument was tested for construct validity and criterion validity, reliability, internal consistency, and responsiveness. The NANDA-I and NOC SNLs and the Boston test were used for criterion validity testing. (3) Results: 5 language dimensions explain 78.6% of the total variance. Convergent criterion validity tests showed concordances of up to 94% (Cohen’s κ: 0.9; p<0.001) using the Boston test, concordances of up to 81% using DCs of NANDA-I diagnoses (Cohen’s κ: 0.6; p<0.001), and concordances of up to 96% (Cohen’s κ: 0.9; p<0.001) using NOC indicators. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.98. Reliability tests revealed test-retest concordances of 76%-100% (p<0,001). (4) Conclusions: The CEECCA is an easy-to-use, valid, reliable instrument to assess the ability to communicate among individuals with aphasia.