Aims: To identify instruments for measuring nurses' well-being at work, evaluate their dimensions, validity, reliability, and determine the most comprehensive of all.

Design: Systematic literature review of measurement properties.

Data sources: Science Direct, PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCO, Scopus, Sage, and Google Scholar for all periods.

Review methods: Quantitative research articles that provide information on psychometric testing of instruments for measuring nurses' well-being were analyzed, excluding non-scientific, and non-English sources. The Consensus-based Standards for The Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) was used to identify the risk of bias. Terwee quality criteria were used to assess the quality of the measurement properties. The synthesis process was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024532860).

Results: A total of 22 articles, covering 17 instruments developed based on different theories and concepts were identified. The number of items ranges from 5-69, with 1-8 dimensions, where the interpersonal relationship is the most widely used dimension. Only a few instruments assess nurses' well-being in particular units. Validity and reliability were tested through various methods, but none met all COSMIN criteria. GRADE analysis revealed that over half of the instruments had low-quality assessment results.

Conclusion: Instruments varied in structure, including the number of items, scales, and dimensions. The low-quality assessment results of most instruments highlight the need for better instrument development and validation, especially for nurses in specific units by considering their respective work culture and climate.

Impact: This study emphasizes the need to develop an instrument to measure nurses' well-being in certain units specifically according to the COSMIN guidelines to improve its validity and reliability. The results of such measurements can help management formulate effective intervention strategies and serve as a basis for further research.

Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Keywords: health psychology; instrument development; literature review; mental health; nurse practitioners; psychometric testing; systematic reviews and meta‐analyses; work organisation.

© 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.