ArticleBMJ open2021
Translation and validation of the Chinese version of medical maximizer-minimizer scale: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Development and psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the capacity for wonder scale.International journal of medical education · 2025Article
- Translation and validation: standard Chinese version of the skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES).Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMedical overutilisation and underutilisation affect optimal healthcare. The Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS) was developed to assess individual medical maximising and minimising tendencies. Despite significant improvement in the healthcare system over the past four decades, no psychometric scales to examine treatment maximising and minimising preferences are available in China. This study aimed to translate the MMS into Chinese and examine its reliability and validity in a Chinese population.
designThis cross-sectional study was conducted in December 2019 through an online survey panel.
methodsThe MMS was translated into a Chinese version (CN-MMS) using a forward-backward translation procedure. Next, a random online survey of the general population in China was conducted. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis were performed to examine the underlying factor structure of the CN-MMS. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was determined using Cronbach's α coefficient and corrected item-total correlation. A multivariate linear regression analysis was used to examine associations between medical maximising and minimising preferences and demographic variables in the Chinese population.
resultsThis study included 984 participants aged 18-80 years. The CN-MMS retained 10 items, and the EFA supported a two-factor structure. The model fit for this two-factor structure of the CN-MMS was acceptable with χ
conclusionsThe CN-MMS showed satisfactory psychometric properties. Therefore, it can be used to investigate the individual medical maximising and minimising tendencies among the general Chinese population.
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.