ArticlePloS one2021
Developing a new individual earthquake resilience questionnaire: A reliability and validity test.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- Exploring the moderating role of gender in the effect of earthquake resilience on earthquake anxiety.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Population Annoyance by Below-Limit Industrial Noise from the Mining Industry: A Questionnaire Survey Methodology.Noise & healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Earthquakes pose serious threats to the world. Good individual resilience can cope with disaster well, but there were few appropriate assessment tools. The purpose of this study was to develop a new individual earthquake resilience questionnaire and test its reliability and validity. First, we built the framework of the individual earthquake resilience questionnaire based on expert interviews. Then, we established the initial version of questionnaire and used the Delphi method and item selection to modify it by qualitative and quantitative methods. Finally, we built the final version of questionnaire (contained 4 dimensions and 17 items) and tested the reliability and validity. The Cronbach's α values of the four dimensions were between 0.79 and 0.91, the split-half reliabilities were between 0.85 and 0.93, and the test-retest reliabilities were between 0.72 and 0.80. The item content validity indexes were between 0.87-1, and the average questionnaire content validity index was 0.94. The correlation coefficients between each item and dimension with the total questionnaire ranged from 0.79-0.90 and 0.66-0.79, respectively. We used exploratory factor analysis to identify four common factors with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 74.97%. The questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool to measure individual resilience in the context of earthquake disasters.
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.