ArticlePloS one2017
Data quality and factor analysis of the Danish version of the Relationship Scale Questionnaire.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe Relationship Scale Questionnaire (RSQ) is a widely-used measure of adult attachment, but whether the results obtained by the RSQ fit the attachment construct has only been examined to a limited extent.
objectiveThe objectives of this study were to investigate the psychometric properties of the Danish translation of the RSQ and to test whether the results are consistent with the hypothesized model of attachment.
methodsThe study included two samples: 602 general practitioners and 611 cancer patients. The two samples were analyzed separately. Data quality was assessed by mean, median and missing values for each item, floor and ceiling effects, average inter-item correlations and Cronbach's α for each subscale. Test-retest was assessed by intra-class correlations among 76 general practitioners. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish evidence of the four proposed subscales. Due to an inadequate fit of the model, data was randomly split into two equally sized subsamples and an exploratory factor analysis was conducted for all 30 items in the first subsample comprised of 286 cancer patients and 285 general practitioners. The EFA yielded a three-factor structure which was validated through a confirmatory factor analyses in a second subsample comprised of 278 cancer patients and 289 general practitioners.
resultsThe data quality of the RSQ was generally good, except low internal consistency and low to moderate test-retest reliability. The four subscales of the RSQ were not confirmed by the confirmatory factor analysis. An exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor solution for both general practitioners and patients, which accounted for 61.1% of the variance among general practitioners and 62.5% among patients. The new three-factor solution was verified in a confirmatory factor analyses.
conclusionThe proposed four-factor model of the RSQ could not be confirmed in this study. Similar challenges have been found by other studies validating the RSQ. An alternative three-factor structure was found for the RSQ.
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.