ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2014
Psychometric evaluation of the Korean version of the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) for patients with type 2 diabetes.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Two-part sequential measurement models for distinguishing between symptom presence and symptom severity.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Article
- [Psychometric properties of an instrument 3: convergent, discriminant, known-groups, and criterion validity].Korean journal of women health nursing · 2021Article
- Improving interpretability of individual Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) scores: the role of patient characteristics.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2020Article
- Psychometric properties of the communication skills attitude scale (CSAS) measure in a sample of Iranian medical students.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was to elucidate the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (K-DSC-R), which is a patient-reported outcome measure of diabetes symptom burden.
methodsA sample of 432 Korean patients with diabetes was recruited from university hospitals. The data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), multitrait/multi-item correlation, Pearson's correlation, t-test, ANOVA, and Cronbach's alpha for construct, item-convergent/discriminant, concurrent, and known-groups validity, and internal consistency reliability.
resultsEFA extracted a total of 29 items clustered into 7 subscales from the K-DSC-R. The construct of the seven-subscales was supported by CFA. The scaling success rates of item-convergent validity were 100% for all subscales, and those of item-discriminant validity ranged from 83.3% to 100%. Patients in more-depressed groups and in the HbA1c-uncontrolled group had higher K-DSC-R scores, satisfying the known-groups validity. The subscales of the K-DSC-R were moderately correlated with health-related quality of life, indicative of the established concurrent validity. The Cronbach's alpha of the K-DSC-R was 0.92.
conclusionsThe psychometric properties of the K-DSC-R have been established. It is thus appropriate for use with respect to reliability and validity in practice and clinical trials for Korean patients with type 2 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.